Skip to main content

Full text of "Origines ecclesiasticæ; or, The antiquities of the Christian church, and other works, of the Rev. Joseph Bingham .."

See other formats 




THE LIBRARIES 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 





Ὁ Oty 


Rule 
ἵν 





" ἡ: 


ἜΝ, 
> Δ] 


Ὶ 
ἊΝ 
i 


Ts ae ey 
lan πὰ aa un 





fy ν 
Ae 


ἣν 


ij x ἢ 
ae 


ara 
: ᾿ “ 


et 


tv 
t 
ae i. 
ris Catan 


ne 


a 
Ae 
ΤΠ 


ii 





Origqines Grelestastteac ; 


OR, THE 


ANTIQUITIES 


OF 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


VOL. VII. 


LONDON: 
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
ST. JOHN’S SQUARE. 


ORIGINES ECCLESIASTICA ; 


OR, THE 


AON TIQULT IES 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 


OTHER WORKS, 


OF THE 


REV. JOSEPH BINGHAM, MA. 


FORMERLY FELLOW OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 3 
AND AFTERWARDS RECTOR OF HEADBOURN WORTHY, AND HAVANT, 


HAMPSHIRE. 


WITH THE QUOTATIONS AT LENGTH, IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, 


AND A BIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT OF THE AUTHOR, 


IN NINE VOLUMES. 


VOL. Vil. 


LONDON: 
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM STRA KER, 


ADELAIDE STREET, WEST STRAND. 





MDCCCXLIV. 


Vel 


Bs) 


(7 


CONTENTS 


OF 


THE SEVENTH VOLUME. 





BOOK XxX. 


OF THE FESTIVALS OBSERVED IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


CHAPTER I. 


Of the Distinction to be made between Civil and Ecclesiastical 
Festivals. 


Secr. I. What meant by the Civil Festivals, 1.—II. Of the ‘ Ferize Aistivee,’ or 
‘ Thirty days of Vacation, in the Harvest Month,’ and the ‘ Ferice Autumnales,’ 
2.—I1I. Of the Kalends of January, 6.—1V. Of the Emperors’ Birthdays, 8. 
—V. Of the ‘ Natales Urbium,’ or the two ‘ Feri,’ in Memory of the Foun- 
dation of Rome and Constantinople, 11. 


CHAPTER II. 


Of the Original and Observation of the Lord’s-Day among 
Christians. 


Secr. I. The Lord’s-Day of continued Observation in the Church from the Days 
of the Apostles, under the Names of Sunday, the Lord’s-Day, the first Day of 
the Week, and the Day of breaking Bread, &e., 13.—I1. All Proceedings at 
Law forbidden and suspended on this Day, except such as were of absolute 
Necessity or great Charity : as Manumission of Slaves, &c., 18.---111. All 
Secular Business forbidden, except such as Necessity or Charity compelled 
Men to, as Gathering of their Fruits in Harvest, by some Laws, 21.—IV. No 
public Games, or Shows, or ludicrous Recreations, allowed on this Day, 31.— 
V. All Fasting prohibited on this Day, even in the Time of Lent, 37.— VI. 
And all Prayers offered in the Standing Posture on the Lord’s-Day, in Me- 
mory of our Saviour’s Resurrection, 41.—VII. The great Care and Concern 
of the Primitive Christians in the Religious Observation of the Lord’s-Day. 
This demenstrated, First, From their constant Attendance upon all the 
Solemnities of Public Worship, 42.—VIII. Secondly, From their Zeal in 
frequenting Religious Assemblies even in Times of Persecution, 43.—IX. 
Thirdly, From their studious Observation of the Vigils, or Nocturnal Assem- 
blies, preceding the Lord’s-Day, 45.—X. Fourthly, From their Attendance 
upon Sermons in many Places twice on this Day, 46.—XI. Fifthly, From 
their Attendance on Evening-Prayers, where there was no Sermon, 46.— 
XII. Sixthly, From the Censures inflicted on those who violated the Laws 
concerning the Religious Observation of the Lord’s-Day, 49. 


ΕΘ ΕΠ: 


vi CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER III. 


Of the Observation of the Sabbath or Saturday as a Weekly 
Festival. 


Secr. I. The Saturday or Sabbath always observed in the Eastern Church as a 
Festival, 51.—II. Observed with the same Religious Solemnities as the 
Lord’s-Day, 54.—III. But, in some other respects, the Preference was 
given to the Lord’s-Day, 55.—IV. Why the Ancient Church continued the 
Observation of the Jewish Sabbath, 56.—V. Why it was kept as a Festival 
in the Oriental Church, 58.—VI. And why a Fast in the Roman, and some 
other of the Latin Churches, 60. 


CHAPTER IV. 
Of the Festival of Christ's Nativity and Epiphany. 


Sect. I. The Nativity of Christ, anciently by some, said to be in May, 66.— 
II. By others fixed to the Day of Epiphany, or sixth of January, 67.—I11. In 
the Latin Church always observed on the twenty-fifth of December, 71.— 
IV. The Original of this Festival derived from the Apostolical Age by some 
ancient Writers, 72.—V. This Festival observed with the same Religious 
Veneration as the Lord’s-Day, 75.—VI. Of Epiphany as a distinct Festival, 
79.—VII. Why this Day is called, by some, the second Epiphany, and ‘ Dies 
Luminum,’ ‘the Day of Lights,’ 82.—VIII. Celebrated as all other great 
Festivals, and in one respect more noted, as being in the Greek Church one 
of the three solemn Times of Baptism, 83.—IX. Notice usually given on 
Epiphany concerning the Time of Easter in the ensuing Year, 85. 


CHAPTER V. 
Of Easter, or the Paschal Festival. 


Sect. I. The Paschal Solemnity anciently reckoned fifteen Days,—the whole 
Week before, and the Week after, Easter Sunday, 87.—II. Great Disputes in 
the Church concerning this Festival, some observing it on a fixed Day every 
Year, 89.—III. Others observing it, with the Jews, on the fourteenth Day of 
the Moon, whatever Day of the Week that happened upon, 90.—IV. They 
who kept it on the Lord’s-Day, did not always agree to fix it on the same 
Lord’s-Day, by reason of their different Calculations, 98.—V. But they all 
agreed to pay a great Respect and Honour to it, as to the Day of our Lord’s 
Resurrection, 106.—VI. On this Day the Emperors granted a general Release 
to the Prisons, and pardoned all Criminals, except some few that were guilty 
of Crimes of a more unpardonable Nature, 108.—VII. At this ‘Time, also, it 
was more usual than ordinarily for Men to show their Charity to Slaves by 
granting them their Freedom, 113.—VIII. And to the Poor by liberal Dona- 
tions, 114.—IX. The whole Week after Easter-Day celebrated with Sermons, 
Communions, &c., as Part of the same Festival, 114.—X. All public Games 
prohibited during this whole Season, 116.—XI. And all Proceedings at Law, - 
except in some special and extraordinary Cases, 117.—X1I. The Sunday after 
Easter, commonly called ‘ Dominica Nova,’ and ‘ Dominica in Albis,’ observed 
with great Solemnity as the Conclusion of the Paschal Festival, 118. 


CHAPTER VI. 
Of Pentecost, or Whitsuntide. 


Sect. I. Pentecost taken in a double Sense among the Ancients. First, For the 
fifty Days between Easter and Whitsuntide ; and, Secondly, For the single 
Day of Pentecost, 119.—II. During which Time the Church chiefly exercised 
herself in reading and meditating upon the Acts of the Apostles, as the great 


CONTENTS. ai 


Confirmation of our Lord’s Resurrection, 121.—III. All Fasting and Kneel- 
ing at Prayers prohibited at this Season, as on the Lord’s-Day, 122.—IV. 
And all public Games and Stage-Plays; but not Pleading at Law forbidden, 
or bodily Labour, 124.—V. Of Ascension-Day, its Antiquity and Observation, 
126.—VI. Of Pentecost, in the strictest Sense, as denoting the Festival of 
the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, 129. 


CHAPTER VII. 


Of the Festivals of the Apostles and Martyrs. 


Secr. I. The Original of the Festivals of Martyrs, 132.—II. Why called their 
‘Natalitia,’? or ‘ Birthday,’ 133.—III. These Festivals usually kept at the 
Graves of the Martyrs, 134.—IV. And mostly confined to those particular 
Churches where the Martyrs suffered and lay buried, 136.—V. Usual to read 
the Acts or Passions of the Martyrs on their proper Festivals, 137.—VI. And 
to make Panegyrical Orations upon them, 138.—VII. The Communion 
always administered upon these Days, 143.—VIII. And herein a particular 
Commemoration of the Martyrs was made, called ‘ the Oblation, or Sacrifice 
of Praise and Thanksgiving to God for them,’ and Prayer for a general 
Consummation and happy Resurrection, 144.—IX. The Night preceding any 
of these Festivals commonly observed as a Vigil, with Psalmody and Prayers, 
146.—X. Common Entertainments made by the Rich for the Use of the Poor, 
upon these Festivals at the Graves of the Martyrs, till Abuses caused them to 
be laid aside, 147.—XI. What Festivals observed in Memory of the Apostles, 
153.—XII. The Festival of the Holy Innocents, 155.—XIII. The Festival of 
the Maccabees, 158.—XIV. Of the general Festival of all the Martyrs, 159. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Of some other Festivals of a later Date and lesser Observation. 


Sect. I. Of the ‘ Enezenia,’ or ‘ Feasts of Dedications of Churches,’ 163.—II. Of 
the Anniversary Festivals of Bishops’ Ordinations, 164.—III. Of Festivals 
kept in Memory of any great Deliverances, or signal Mercies, vouchsafed by 
God to his Church, 169.—IV. Of the Feast of the Annunciation, 171.— 
V. Of the Festival called ‘ Hypapante,’ afterward Purification and Candlemas- 
Day, 172.—VI. The Original of Festivals in Honour of Confessors and other 
Holy Men, 175. 


BOOK XXI. 
OF THE FASTS IN USE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 


CHAPTER I. 


Of the Quadragesimal, or Lent-Fast. 


Secr. I. What this Fast was originally, forty Days or forty Hours, 177.— 
II. Some Probability that at first it was only a Fast of forty Hours, or the 
two Days from the Passion to the Resurrection, 179.--- 11. Great Variety, in 
Point of Time, observable in the Celebration of this Fast, in many Churches, 
182.—1V. Lent consisted not of above thirty-six Fasting-Days in any Church 
till the Time of Gregory the Great; because all Sundays were universally 
excepted out of the Fast, and all Saturdays, except one, in all the Eastern 
Churches, 184.—V. Who first added Ash-Wednesday, and the other three 

=| 


Ὁ 


Vill CONTENTS. 


Days, in the Roman Church, to the Beginning of Lent, 186.—VI. Whether 
the Ancients reputed Lent to be an Apostolical Institution, 186.—VII. In 
what Sense some of them say it is a Divine Institution, 189.—VIII. How far 
allowed to be a Tradition, or Canon Apostolical, 191.—IX. What were the 
Causes or Reasons of instituting the Lent-Fast. First, The Apostles’ Sorrow 
for the Loss of their Master, 193.—X. Secondly, The Declension of Christian 
Piety from its first and primitive Fervour, 194.—X1. Thirdly, That Men 
might prepare themselves for a worthy Participation of the Communion at 
Easter, 196.—XII. Fourthly, That Catechumens might prepare themselves 
for Baptism, 197.—XIII. And Penitents for Absolution at Easter, 199.— 
XIV. Lent generally observed by all Christians, though with a great Liberty 
and just Allowance to Men’s Infirmities, being, in a great Measure, left to 
their own Discretion, 201—XV. How the Montanists differed from the 
Church about the Imposition of Fasts, 208—XVI. The Lent-Fast kept with 
a perfect Abstinence from all Food every Day till Evening, 210.—X VII. 
Change of Diet not accounted a proper Fast for Lent, without perfect Absti- 
nence till Evening, 212.—X VIII. What they spared in a Dinner, not spent 
in Evening Luxury, but bestowed on the Poor, 216.—XIX. All corporeal 
Punishments forbidden by the Imperial Laws in Lent, 216.—XX. Religious 
Assemblies and Sermons every Day in Lent, 218.—X XI. And frequent Com- 
munions, especially on the Sabbath and Lord’s-Day, 219.—X XII. All public 
Games and Stage-Plays prohibited at this Season, 220.—X XIII. As also 
the Celebration of all Festivals, Birthdays, and Marriages, as unsuitable to 
the present Occasion, 223.—X XIV. The Great Week before Easter observed 
with greater Strictness and Solemnity, 224. XXV. What meant by the Fasts 
called Ὑπερθέσεις, and ‘Superpositiones,’ ‘Superpository or Additional Fasts,’ 
in this Week, 227.—X XVI. Christians more liberal in their Alms and Charity 
this Week above others, 229.—X XVII. This Week a Week of Rest and 
Liberty for Servants, 229.—X XVIII. A general Release granted at this Time 
by the Emperors to all Prisoners, both Debtors and Criminals, some particu- 
lar Cases of Criminals only excepted, 230.—X XIX. All Processes at Law, 
as well civil as criminal, suspended this whole Week before Easter, 231.— 
XXX. The Thursday in this Week, how observed, 231.—XXXI. Of the 
Passion-Day, or the Pasch of our Lord’s Crucifixion, 234.—XX XII. Of the 
Saturday, or Great Sabbath before Easter, 236. 








CHAPTER II. 


Of the Fasts of the Four Seasons, or Monthly Fasts, and the 
Original of Ember- Weeks and Rogation-Days. 


μον 1. The Fast of March, or the First Month, the same with the Lent-Fast, 
241.—II. The Fast of Pentecost, 242.—III. The Fast of the Seventh 
Month, or the Autumnal Fast, 243.—IV. The Advent, or Nativity-Fast, 
called the Fast of December, or the Tenth Month, 244.——V. The Fast at 
Epiphany, 245.—VI. Of Monthly Fasts, 245.—VII. The Original of the 
Four Ember-Weeks, or Ordination-Fasts, 246.—VIII. The Original of the 
Rogation-Fast, 246. 


CHAPTER III. 


Of the Weekly-Fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays, or the 
Stationary Days of the Ancient Church. 


Seer. I. The Original of these Fasts, 251.—II. The Reasons of their Insti- 
tution, 253.—I11. How they differed from the Lent-Fast, and all others, in 
point of Duration, 254.—IV. With what Solemnity they were observed, 
257.—V. How the Catholics and Montanists disputed about the Observation 
of them, 257.—VI. How the Wednesday Fast came to be changed to Satur- 
day in the Western Churches, 260. 


CONTENTS. a 


BOOK XXII. 


OF THE MARRIAGE-RITES OBSERVED IN THE ANCIENT 
CHURCH. 


CHAPTER I. 


A short Account of the Heretics who condemned or vilified Mar- 
riage anciently, under Pretence of greater Purity and Per- 
fection; and of such also as gave License to Community of 
Wives and Fornication. 


Sect. I. Community of Wives first taught by Simon Magus, 261.—II. After- 
ward by Saturnilus and the Nicolaitans, and many others, 263.—II1. Hence 
arose the Calumny of the Gentiles against the Christians in general, that they 
practised Impurity in their Religious Assemblies, 265.—IV. These Doctrines 
being fetched from the very Dregs of Gentilism, and Scandalous in the Eyes 
of sober Heathens, 266.—V. Marriage condemned as unlawful by Titian 
and the Encratites, 269.—VI. Also by the Apostolici, or Apotactici, 270.— 
VII. By the Manichees, Severians, and Archontici, 270.—VIII. By the 
Hieracians and Eustathians, 271.—1X. Who were condemned in the Council 
of Gangra, and those called the Apostolical Canons, 273.—X. The Error of 
the Montanists about Second Marriages ; and of the Noyatians also, 275. 


CHAPTER 11. 


Of the just Impediments of Marriage in particular Cases, show- 
ing what Persons might, or might not, be lawfully joined 
together ; and of the Times and Seasons when the Celebration 
of Marriage was forbidden. 


Secr. I. Christians not to marry with Infidels, or Jews, or Heretics, or any of a 
different Religion, 277.—I1. All Christians obliged to acquaint the Church 
with their Designs of Marriage before they completed it, 285.—III. Not to 
marry with Persons of near Alliance, either by Consanguinity or Affinity, to 
avoid Suspicion of Incest, 287.—IV. Children under Age not to marry with- 
out the Consent of their Parents or Guardians, or next Relations, 289.— 
V. Slaves not to marry without the Consent of their Masters, 292.—VI. Per- 
sons of superior rank not to marry Slaves, 292.-VII. Judges of Provinces 
not to marry any Provincial Woman during the Year of their Administration, 
294.—VIII. Widows not to marry again till twelve Months after their 
Husbands’ Death, 295.—IX. Women not to marry in the Absence of their 
Husbands, till they were certified of their Death, 296.—X. Guardians not to 
marry Orphans in their Minority, till their Guardianship was ended, 297.— 
XI. When first the Prohibition of Spiritual Relations marrying one with an- 
other, came in, 298.—XII. Whether a Man might marry after a lawful 
Divorce ? 295.—X III. Whether an Adulterer might marry an Adulteress, 
whom he had defiled, after the Death of her Husband ? 308.—XIV. The 
Celebration of Marriage forbidden in Lent, 311. 


CHAPTER ITI. 


Of the Manner of making Espousals preceding Marriage in the 
Ancient Church. 


Sect. I. How the ‘ Sponsalia,’ or * Espousals,’ differed from Marriage, 313.— 
Il. Free Consent of Parties necessary in Espousals, 314.—IT1. The Contract 


xX CONTENTS. 


of Espousals usually testified by Gifts, called ‘ Arree,’ or ‘ Donationes Spon- 
salitize which were sometimes mutually given and received both by the Man 
and Woman, 316.—IV. These Donations to be entered into public Acts, and 
set upon record, 317.—V. The Contract further testified by giving and 
receiving of a Ring, 318.—V1I. And by a solemn Kiss, and Joining of Hands, 
321.—VII. And by Settling of a Dowry, in Writing, 322.—VIII. And 
by transacting the whole Affair before a competent Number of Witnesses, 
323.—IX. How far the Obligation of Espousals extended, 324.—X. Whether 


they were simply and absolutely necessary to precede a Just and Legal 
Marriage ? 327. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Of the Manner of celebrating Marriage in the Ancient Church. 


Secr. I. The Solemnities of Marriage between Christians usually celebrated by 
the Ministers of the Church from the Beginning, 331—II. In what Cases it 
might happen to be otherwise, 338.—III. How the Primitive Practice was 
revived, when it came to be neglected, 340.—IV. Other Ceremonies used in 
Marriage, as Joining of Hands and Veiling, 342.—V. Untying the Woman’s 
Hair, 342.—VI. Crowning the New-married Couple with Crowns or Garlands, 
343.—VII. Carrying the Bride Home to the Bridegroom’s House ; how far 
necessary in some Cases of Law, 346.—VIII. How far the Marriage Pomp 
was allowed or disallowed by the Ancient Fathers, 347. 


CHAPTER V. 


Of Divorces: how far they were allowed or disallowed by the 
Ancient Christians. 


Sect. 1. The Ancients divided about the Sense of Fornication. Some taking it 
only for Carnal Fornication, and making it the only just Cause of Divoree, 
350.—II. Others took it to imply Spiritual Fornication ; that is, Idolatry and 
Apostasy from God, and other Crimes of the like Nature, 353.—II1I. This 
later Opinion, from the Time of Constantine, much countenanced by the Laws 
of the State. First, by Constantine himself, 356.—IV. Then by Honorius, 
359.—V. And Theodosius Junior, 360.—VI. And Valentinian III., 362.— 
VII. And Anastasius, 363.—VIII. And Justinian, 363. 





BOOK XXIII. 


OF FUNERAL RITES; OR, THE CUSTOM AND MANNER OF 
BURYING THE DEAD OBSERVED IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 


CHAPTER I. 


Of Cemeteries, or Burying-places ; with an Inquiry, how and 
when the Custom of Burying in Churches first came in. 


Sect. I. A Cemetery a common Name for a Burying-place and a Church. 
How this came to pass, 366.—II. No Burying-places in Cities or Churches 
for the first Three Hundred Years, 367.—I11. But either in Monuments 
erected by the Public, or in Vaults and Catacombs in the Fields under 
Ground, 372.—IV. Burying in Cities and Churches prohibited by Christian 


CONTENTS. xi 


Emperors, for several Ages after, 377.—V. The first Step made toward 
Burying in Churches, was the Building of Churches over the Graves of the 
Martyrs in the Country, or else translating their Relies into the City- 
Churches, 380.—VI. The next was allowing Kings and Emperors to be 
buried in the ‘ Atrium,’ or ‘ Porch,’ and outer Buildings of the Church, 381.— 
VII. Then the People, in the Sixth Century, began to be admitted into the 
Churehyards, but not into the Church, 383.—VIIT. And in this Period of 
Time, Kings, Bishops, Founders of Churches, and other eminent Persons, 
were, by some Laws, allowed to be buried in Churches, 385.—IX. The Matter 
at last left to the Discretion of Bishops and Presbyters, who should or should 
not be buried in Churches. Hereditary Sepulchres not yet allowed in the 
Ninth Century, but brought in by the Pope’s Decretals, 386. 


CHAPTER II. 


Some other Observations concerning the Place, and Manner, and 
Time of Burying. 


Sect. I. Consecration of Cemeteries not very ancient, 389.—II. The Sacredness 
of them arising from another Reason, and not from their formal Consecration, 
390.—III. The Way of adorning Graves different among Heathens and 
Christians, 391.—IV. They differed also in the Manner of Burying: the 
Heathens commonly burning the Body, and putting the Bones and Ashes in 
Urns; but the Christians buried the Body whole in the Earth, abhorring the 
Heathen Custom, 394.—V. Embalming of Bodies much used by Christians ; 
and why more by them than the Heathens, 398.—VI. The Christians usually 
buried by Day, the Heathens by Night, 400. 


CHAPTER III. 


How they prepared the Body for the Funeral, and with what 
Religious Ceremonies and Solemnities they interred tt. 


Sect. I. Christians always careful to bury the Dead, even with the Hazard of 
their Lives, 408.—II. How they prepared the Body for Burial. First, 
Closing its Eyes and Mouth,—a decent Cireumstance, observed by all Nations, 
410.—IIJ. Then washing the Body in Water, 410.—IV. Dressing it in 
Funeral Robes : and these sometimes rich and splendid, 412.—V. Watching 
and attending it in its Coffin till the Time of the Funeral, 415.—VI. The 
Exportation of the Body performed by near Relations, or Persons of Dignity, 
or any charitable Persons, as the Case and Circumstances of the Party required, 
417.— VII. Particular Orders of men appointed in some great Churches, under 
the Names of ‘Copiatze’ and ‘ Parabolani,’ to take care of the Sick, and perform 
all these Offices for the Dead, 418.—VIII. Psalmody the great Ceremony 
used in all Processions of Funerals among Christians, in Opposition to the 
Heathens’ Piping and Funeral Song, 419.—IX. Crowning the Coffin with 
Garlands not allowed among Christians, though they serupled not to carry 
Lights before them, 423.—X. Funeral Orations made in the Praise of eminent 
Persons, 425.—XI. Together with Psalmody, and the usual Service of the 
Church, 425.—XII. And sometimes the Oblation of the Eucharist, 427.— 
XIII. With particular Prayers for the Dead, 429.—XIV. A corrupt Custom 
of giving the Kiss of Peace and the Eucharist to the Dead, corrected by the 
ancient Canons, 432.—XV. Almsdeeds commonly added to Prayers for the 
Dead, 433.—X VI. And repeated yearly upon the Anniversary Days of Com- 
memoration of the Dead, 434.—X VII. But this often degenerated into great 
Excesses and Abuses, which are complained of as no better than the ‘Parentalia’ 
of the Gentiles, 435.—X VIII. Decent Expressions of moderate Sorrow at 
Funerals not disallowed ; but the Heathenish Custom of hiring ‘ Preeficze,’ or 
Mourning Women, sharply reproved by the Ancients, 437—XIX. The 


xil CONTENTS. 


‘Novendial’ of the Heathen rejected as a superstitious Practice, 440.—X X. 
The Custom of strewing Flowers upon the Graves of the Dead, retained 
without Offence, 442—X XI. As also Wearing a Mourning Habit for some 
Time, 443.—X XII. Some other Rites not allowed by the Ancients, 444.— 
XXIII. To what Sort of Persons the Privilege of Burying with this Solem- 
nity was denied, 445. 


CHAPTER IV. 


An Account of the Laws made to secure the Bodies and Graves 
of the Dead from the Violence of Robbers and Sacrilegious 
Invaders. 


Secr. I. The old Roman Laws very severe against Robbers of Graves, and 
all Abuses and Injuries done to the Bodies of the Dead, 451.—II. This 
Severity continued for the most part under the Christian Emperors, with some 
additional Circumstances, 452.—I1I. No Indulgence given to Robbers of 
Graves by the Emperors, at the Easter Festival, 455.—IV. For this Crime 
a Woman was allowed by the Laws to give a Bill of Divorce to her Husband, 
456.—V. One Reason tempting Men to commit this Crime, was the rich 
Adorning of the Heathen Sepulchres, 456.—VI. A more plausible Pretence 
was taken up from the Laws, that ordered all Heathen Altars and Images to 
be demolished, 457.—VII. A third Reason was, to get the Relics of Martyrs 
to sell and make gain of them, 458.—VIII. A peculiar Custom in Egypt to 
keep the Bodies embalmed and unburied in their Houses above Ground, 460. 
—1X. No Religious Worship allowed to be given to Relics in the Ancient 
Church till after the Time of St. Austin, 462. 


THE ANTIQUITIES 


OF THE 


CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 





BOOK XxX. 


OF THE FESTIVALS OBSERVED IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


CHAPTER I. 


OF THE DISTINCTION TO BE MADE BETWEEN CIVIL AND 
ECCLESIASTICAL FESTIVALS. 


ὅκου, 1.---- What meant by the Civil Festivals. 


Havine hitherto taken a distinct view of the great services 
of the ancient Church in the several parts of her liturgy, and 
the administration of her sacraments, and the exercise of 
discipline, I come now to give an account of the lesser kind 
of observations relating to her festivals, and days of fasting, 
and marriage rites, and funeral rites ; all which may, in some 
measure, be comprised under the general name of the ‘Service 
of the Church.’ 

In speaking of the festivals, it will be necessary, first of all, 
to distinguish the ecclesiastical festivals from the civil. For 
some were purely ecclesiastical, others purely civil; and others 
(as festivals of greater account) were both ecclesiastical and 
civil. All Sundays throughout the year, and the fifteen days 
of the paschal solemnity, were festivals both in the ecclesiasti- 
cal and civil account. For they were not only days of more 
solemn religious observation, but also days of vacation from 
lawsuits and prosecution of secular business. Other festivals 

VOL. VIT. B 


Ω THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


were purely of ecclesiastical account ; for they were days of 
religious assembly, but not entirely days of vacation. Others 
were purely civil festivals, that is, days of vacation from law- 
suits and secular affairs, but not distinguished by any peculiar 
character of religious observation. Of this sort were the 
‘ ferize vestivee,’ or ‘the thirty days of harvest ;’ and the ‘ ferize 
autumnales,’ or ‘the thirty days of vintage ;’ and three days 
under the common name of the Kalends of January; one day 
called the ‘natalis urbis Romee,’ ‘the foundation of Rome ;’ 
and another, the ‘natalis,’ or ‘foundation’ of Constantinople ; 
and four days called the ‘natales imperatorum,’ including both 
their natural birthdays and their civil birthdays, that is, their 
inauguration to the empire. Of all which, because there is 
frequent mention made of them in the ancient writers, and 
laws, and canons, it will not be amiss to speak a little more 
particularly in the entrance of this discourse. 


Secr. I].—Of the Feriee AMstivee, or ‘ Thirty days of Vaca- 
tion, in the Harvest Month, and the Feriee Autumnales. 


All these are comprehended in one law of Theodosius and 
Valentinian Junior, under the general name of ‘ ferize forenses,’ 
‘days of vacation, or rest, from pleadings in the civil courts of 
judicature.’ Where all days in the year are appointed to be 
juridical*, except the two months of harvest and vintage, and 
the Kalends of January, and the ‘natales’ of the two great 
cities, Rome and Constantinople, and the birthdays of the 
emperors, and their inauguration to the empire, and the fifteen 
days of Easter, which were festival both in the ecclesiastical 
and civil account, as also all Sundays throughout the year. 


ἃ Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 121.) 
Omnes dies jubemus esse juridicos. Illos tantum manere feriarum dies fas erit, 
quos geminis mensibus ad requiem laboris indulgentior annus accepit, zestivis 
fervoribus mitigandis, et autumnis foetibus decerpendis. Kalendarum quoque 
Januariarum consuctos dies otio sancimus. His adjicimus natalitios dies urbium 
maximarum (Romee atque Constantinopolis), quibus debent jura deferre, quia 
et ab ipsis quoque nata sunt. Sanctos quoque Pasche dies, qui septeno vel 
preecedunt numero, vel sequuntur, in eadem observatione numeramus. Nec 
non et Dies Solis, qui repetito in se caleulo revolyuntur. Parem necesse est 
haberi reverentiam nostris etiam diebus, qui vel lucis auspicia, vel ortus imperii 
protulerunt. 


Cuape. 1. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 3 


Where it is rightly observed by Gothofred”, that the other 
ecclesiastical festivals of Christmas, Epiphany, and Pentecost, 
were not as yet made festivals in the civil account. For, at 
this time, many of the judges were still heathens: and there- 
fore juridical pleadings were allowed on these days, notwith- 
standing that they were kept with great solemnity and _reli- 
gious veneration among the Christians. But afterward, when 
Justinian repeated this law in his Code’, the prohibition of 
pleadings upon these days, and upon the Passions of the 
Apostles, was inserted, together with a prohibition of all the 
public shows and games upon any of these solemnities; of 
which more hereafter. 

As to those festivals which were purely civil, we are to 
observe, that some of them were of long standing in the 
Roman empire, and no new institution of Christians, but only 


b Gothofr. in loc. p. 125. Etsi Natalis quoque Domini, Epiphaniarum, et 
Pentecostes solemnitas apud Christianos, ut feriarum dies, celebritate religiosa 
jam peragerentur, nondum tamen juridicis diebus in orbe Romano hoe tempore 
exempti fuere ; quod ex hac lege liquet, ubi Paganorum etiam judicum multi- 
tudo adhue magna erat, et quidem in ipsa urbe Roma: inter heec scilicet initia 
satis visum, si inter festos Christianorum dies, Paschales dies, Diesque Solis 
juridicis eximerentur, veneratione Christianz religionis, ac non etiam alii, 
quantumlibet feriati Christianorum dies, qui in Diem Solis non inciderent ; sane 
spectacula hisee quoque diebus exhiberi, non minus quam Dominica, aut 
Paschatis, vetitum postea a Theodosio Juniore, in ‘d. 1. Dominico ult. inf. de 
Spectaculis. 

ὁ Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. vii. (Amstel. 1663. p. 59.) 
Omnes dies jubemus esse juridicos. T[llos tantum manere feriarum dies fas erit, 


? 


quos geminis mensibus ad requiem laboris indulgentior annus excepit : eestivis 
fervoribus mitigandis ; et autumnos fructibus decerpendis: Kalendarum quoque 
Januariarum consuetos dies otio mancipamus. His adjicimus natalitios dies 
urbium maximarum, Romze atque Constantinopolis: in quibus debent jura 
differri, quia et ab ipsis nata sunt. Sacros quoque Paschz dies, qui septeno 
numero vel preecedunt, vel sequuntur. Dies etiam Natalis, atque Epiphania- 
rum Christi, et quo tempore commemoratio Apostolicze Passionis, totius Chris- 
tianitatis magistree, a cunctis jure celebratur: in quibus etiam preedictis sanc- 
tissimis diebus neque spectaculorum copiam reseramus. In eadem observatione 
numeramus et Dies Solis (quos ‘ Dominicos’ rite dixere majores) qui repetito in 
sese caleulo revolvuntur: in quibus parem necesse est habere reverentiam: ut 
nee apud ipsos arbitros, vel a judicibus flagitatos, vel sponte electos, ulla sit 
cognitio jurgiorum. Nostris etiam diebus, qui vel lucis auspicia, vel ortus 
imperii protulerunt. In quindecim autem Paschalibus diebus compulsio anno- 
nariz functionis, et omnium publicorum privatorumque debitorum differatur 
exactio. 


1} 


4. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE. Book XX. 


reformed and regulated by them in some particulars, to cut 
off the idolatrous rites and other corruptions that sometimes 
attended them. The multitude of them was complained of by 
Tully?: and therefore Augustus cut off thirty of them at 
once, turning those days, which were deputed for honorary 
games, into days of pleading, for the better prosecution of 
criminals, and greater expedition of justice; as Suetonius 
reports in his Life®. And a like reduction was made by Anto- 
ninus Philosophus, who is said to have added several judiciary 
days to the calendar‘, striking out many festivals, and appoint- 
ing two hundred and thirty days in the year for hearing of 
causes, and despatching business of the law. The Christian 
emperors reduced the number of these festivals to a much 
shorter compass. For they cast away all festivals that were 
held in honour of the heathen gods: and though they brought 
in all Sundays in the year into the computation of civil fes- 
tivals, and also the fifteen days of the Paschal solemnity, yet 
the whole number did not amount to above one hundred and 
twenty-five: so that there remained two hundred and forty 
days still for public business of the law. And of those one 
hundred and twenty-five days that were exempt, sixty days or 
two months were only set apart as days of vacation from the 
law, for the convenience of gathering in the harvest and the 
vintage. The one were called ‘ ferize eestivee, and the other 
‘ferize autumnales.’ And these were ancient Roman festivals 
mentioned by Statius’, and Aulus Gellius", and Pliny‘, and 


4 Οἷς. actio prima cont. Verrem, cap. x. Ita prope xl. diebus interpositis, tum 
denique se ad ea. . . responsuros esse arbitrantur. 

© Sueton. Vit. Aug. ¢. xxxii. (B. Crus. vol. i. p. 257.) Ne quod maleficium 
negotiumve impunitate vel mora elaberetur, triginta amplius dies, qui honorariis 
ludis occupabantur, actui rerum accommodavit. 

f Jul. Capitolin. Vit. Antonin, Philosoph. (Lugd. Bat. 1661. p. 174.) Ju- 
diciarize rei singularem diligentiam adhibuit; fastis dies judiciarios addidit, 
ita ut ducentos triginta dies annuos rebus agendis litibusque disceptandis con- 
stituerit. 

8 Stat. lib. iv. Silvar. 4, 39. (Bipont. p. 103.) 

Certe jam Latize non miscent jurgia leges, 

Et pacem piger annus habet ; messesque reversse 
Dimisere forum. Nee jam tibi turba reorum 
Vestibulo, querulive rogant exire clientes: 

Cessat Centeni moderatrix Judicis hasta. 


Cuap. I. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. dD 
after them by Ulpian the famous lawyer/, who shows at large 
for what end they were appointed ; that countrymen might not 
be molested in gathering their fruits at their proper seasons, 
except it were in some extraordinary cases, which required 
a more speedy decision before the preetor. The schools of 
rhetoric had also their vacations at these seasons, as we learn 
both from Aulus Gellius and St. Austin’. And because this 


h Gell. Noct. Attic. lib. ix. e. xv. (Lugd. Bat. 1666. p. 496.) Cum Antonio 
Juliano rhetore, per feriarum tempus zestivarum, decedere ex urbis eestu volen- 
tes, Neapolin concesseramus. 

i Plin. lib. viii. ep. xxi. (Gierig, Lips. 1862. p. 268.) Julio mense, quo maxime 
lites interquiescunt, 

J Digest. lib. ii. tit. xii. De Feriis, leg. i. (Amstel. 1663. p. 94.) Ne quis mes- 
sium vindemiarumque tempore adversarium cogat ad judicium venire, oratione 
divi Marci exprimitur: quia oceupati circa rem rusticam in forum compellendi 
non sunt. ... Sed excipiuntur certze causee, ex quibus cogi poterimus et per id 
temporis, quum messes vindemizeque sunt, ad preetores venire: scilicet si res 
tempore peritura sit, hoc est, si dilatio actionem sit peremtura. Sane quotiens 
res urget, cogendi quidem sumus ad przetorem venire, verum ad hoe tantum 
cogi zequum est, ut lis contestetur et ita ipsis verbis orationis exprimitur: deni- 
que alterutro recusante post litem contestatam litigare, dilationem oratio con- 
cessit. Leg. ii, Eadem oratione divus Marcus in senatu recitata effecit, de 
aliis speciebus preetorem adiri etiam diebus feriaticis: ut puta, ut tutores aut 
curatores dentur, ut officii admoneantur cessantes, excusationes allegentur, ali- 





menta constituantur, cetates probentur, ventris nomine in possessionem mitta- 
tur, vel rei servandze causa, vel legatorum, fideive commissorum, vel damni 





infecti, ete. Leg. iii. Solet etiam messis vindemiarumque tempore jus dici 
de rebus, que tempore vel morte periturze sunt: morte, veluti furti, damni, 
injurize, injuriarum atrocium, qui de incendio, ruina, naufragio, rate, nave 
expugnata rapuisse dicuntur, et si quze similes sunt: item si res tempore peri- 
turze sunt, aut actionis dies exiturus est. Liberalia quoque judicia omni tem- 
pore finiuntur. Item in eum, qui quid nundinarum nomine adversus communem 
utilitatem aeceperit, omni tempore jus dicitur. 

k Aug. Confess. lib. ix. ¢. ii. (Bened. 1700. vol i. p. 115, A.) Placuit mihi 
in conspectu tuo non tumultuose abripere, sed leniter subtrahere ministerium 
linguee meze nundinis loquacitatis, ne ulterius pueri meditantes non Jegem tuam, 
non pacem tuam, sed insanias mendaces et bella forensia, mercarentur ex ore 
meo arma furori suo. Et opportune jam paucissimi dies supererant ad vinde- 
miales ferias, statui tolerare illos, ut solemniter abscederem, et redemtus a te 
jam non redirem venalis, .. . Verum tamen quia propter nomen tuum, quod 
sanctificasti per terras, etiam laudatores utique haberet votum et propositum 
nostrum, jactantize simile videbatur, non opperiri tam proximum feriarum 
tempus, sed de publica professione atque ante oculos omnium sita ante disce- 
dere, ut conversa in factum meum ora cunctorum intuentium, quam vicinum 
vindemialium diem prievenire voluerim, multa dicerent, quod quasi appetissem 
magnus videri. 


6 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 
sort of ‘feriee’ had nothing of harm, but only convenience in 
them, they were continued without scruple by the Christian 
emperors, and established by their laws, as we have seen, upon 
consideration of the usefulness and necessity of them ; leaving 
it to the judges of the several provinces of the world to deter- 
mine precisely what time they should commence: for they did 
not begin the harvest month, or the vintage month, every 
where on the same day, but some countries sooner and some 
later, according to the different state and condition of every 
climate. And so the observation of these two months con- 
tinued, as Gothofred notes', to the time of the Emperor Otho, 
who first abrogated them in the laws of the Lombards. 


Secr. Il].—Of the Kalends of January. 


The next civil ‘ Ferize’ were the Kalends of January : which, 
as Gothofred thinks, comprised three days, the day before the 
Kalends, the Kalends, and the third of the Nones; or, as 
others say™, the day before the Nones, that is, the fourth of 
January, commonly called Bota and Vota, because it was the 
day of sacrificing for the emperor's safety. These were con- 
tinued by the Christian emperors without any idolatrous rites, 
but still were days of great liberty and extravagance. Upon 
which account, the ancient fathers and councils commonly 
declaim, with great invectives, against the observation of them. 
For not only Tertullian speaks against them”, whilst they were 
accompanied with idolatrous and superstitious rites, in the 
time of heathenism; but, in after ages, the fathers, in their 
popular discourses, are often very severe and copious in their 
dissuasives from the observation of them, both upon the 


1 Gothofr. in Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (vol. ii. p. 123. 
col. 1.) Tandem vero sublatze fuerunt hee ferize ab Ottone, (lib. ii. tit. xlix.) legis 
Longobardorum. 

m Dempster. Paralipomena ad Rosini Antiquit. Roman. p. 543. 

» Tertul. de Idol. ο. xiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 93, D.) Nimirum Saturnalia et 
Kalendas Januarias celebrans hominibus placebat (Paulus)? an modestia et 
patientia? an gravitate, an integritate?...Judeeis dies suos festos exprobrat 
Spiritus Sanctus. ‘ Sabbata,’ inquit, ‘ vestra, et neomenias et czerimonias odit 
anima mea.’ Nobis, quibus Sabbata extranea sunt et neomenie, et ferize a Deo 
aliquando dilectee, Saturnalia, et Januarize, et Brume, et Matronales frequen- 
tantur? ete. 


Cuap. 1. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 7 


account of the relics of superstition remaining in the hearts 
of many Christians; and also because they were occasions of 
great looseness and debauchery among the people. St. Chry- 
sostom says°, ‘“‘ Many were superstitiously addicted to the 
observation of times, and made divination and conjectures 
upon them: as, if they spent the new-moon in mirth and 
pleasure, the whole year would be prosperous and lucky to 
them. So both men and women gave themselves to intem- 
perance on these days, out of this diabolical persuasion, that 
the good or bad fortune of the rest of the year depended upon 
such an ominous beginning of it. Which was the devil’s 
invention to ruin the practice of all virtue.” He observes 
further?, “‘ That they were used, in the celebration of these 
times, to set up lamps in the market-place, and crown their 
doors with garlands ;” which he condemns together with their 
superstition and intemperance, as a mixture of diabolical pomp 
and childish folly. The like complaints are made by St. 
Austin’, Chrysologus', Prudentius’, Asterius Amasenus'‘, and 


© Chrysost. Hom. xxiii. in Kalendas. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 699, A 3.) Ot 
ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις ἀγῶνες γινόμενοι τήμερον, οὗτοι μὲν μάλιστα ὀδυνῶσι, 
καὶ ἀσωτείας καὶ ἀσεβείας ἐμπεπλησμένοι πολλῆς" ἀσεβείας μὲν, ὅτι παρα- 
τηροῦσιν ἡμέρας οἱ ταῦτα ποιοῦντες, καὶ οἰωνίζονται, καὶ νομίζουσιν, εἰ τὴν 
γουμηνίαν τοῦ μηνὸς τούτου μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς καὶ εὐφροσύνης ἐπιτελέσαιεν, καὶ 
τὸν ἅπαντα τοιοῦτον ἕξειν ἐνιαυτόν. ἀσωτείας δὲ, Ore ὑπὸ τὴν ἕω γυναῖκες 
καὶ ἄνδρες φιάλας καὶ ποτήρια πληρώσαντες μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἀσωτείας τὸν 
ἄκρατον. πίνουσι. . .«. ἴΑλλως δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀνοίας ἂν εἴη, ἀπὸ τῆς 
μιᾶς ἡμέρας εἰ δεξιὰ γένοιτο, καὶ τοῦ παντὸς τοῦτο προσδοκᾷν. ἐνιαυτοῦ" 
οὐκ ἀνοίας δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ διαβολικῆς ἐνεργείας ἡ κρίσις αὕτη, μὴ τῇ 
οἰκείᾳ σπουδῇ καὶ προθυμίᾳ, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν ἡμερῶν περιόδοις τὰ κατὰ τὸν 
βίον ἐπιτρέπειν τὸν ἡμέτερον. 

Ρ Ibid. (p. 706, Β 5.) Τὸ πρὸς ἡμέρας ἐπτοῆσθαι τοιαύτας, καὶ πλείονα ἐν 
αὐταῖς δέχεσθαι ἡδονὴν, καὶ λύχνους ἅἵπτειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορῆς, καὶ στεφανώ- 
para πλέκειν, παιδικῆς ἀνοίας ἐστίν"... μὴ τὴν θύραν τῆς οἰκίας στεφανώ- 
σῆς, κι τ. Ne 

a Aug. Serm. v. de Kalendis Januar. (Bened. 1679. vol. v. p. 903, 904.) 

x Chrysolog. Serm. οἷν. (Aug. Vind. 1758. p. 218.) De Calendis Januarii que 
varia gentium superstitione polluebantur. 

s Prudent. cont. Symmach. lib. i. 237. (Bibl. V. P. Galland. vol. viii. p. 505.) 

. . Jano etiam celebri de mense litatur 
Auspiciis epulisque sacris, quas inveterato, 
Heu miseri, sub honore agitant, et gaudia ducunt 
Festa Kalendarum. Sic observatio crevit, 
Ex atavis quondam male ccepta: deinde secutis 


8 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


St. Ambrose". So that though these festivals of the Kalends 
were allowed by the imperial laws, yet they were generally 
condemned by the ancient writers, because of the vanities, and 
excesses, and abuses, that were usually committed in them. 
And particularly the Council of Trullo forbids the dancings, 
and other ceremonies’, that were used both by men and 
women on the Kalends and the Bota, under the penalty of 
excommunication: as I have had occasion to show more fully 
in speaking of the discipline of the Church*. And the Coun- 
cil of Auxerre takes notice of the remains of some heathen 
superstition in France, in offering a hind, or a ealf¥, which 
they call a diabolical observation. 


Secr. 1V.—Of the Emperors’ Birthdays. 


The next civil festivals were the emperors’ birthdays, which 
were of two sorts: the one was called ‘ natalis genuinus,’ 
‘their natural birthday : and the other, ‘ natalis imperil,” 
‘their inauguration ;’ as they are distinguished in several laws 
of the Theodosian Code*, and other ancient writers, which 


Tradita temporibus, serisque nepotibus aucta, 
Traxerunt longam corda inconsulta catenam, 
Mosque tenebrosus vitiosa in seecula fluxit. 

t Aster. Hom. iv. in Festum Kalendarum, ap. Combefis. Auct. Nov. p. 65. 
the whole homily. 

u Ambros. Serm. xvii. (Bened. Paris. 1686. vol. ii. append. p. 399.) Cur ubi 
Christus habitat qui est temperantia, inducitur comessatio ? ete. 

Y Cone. Trull. ¢, xlii. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1170.) Τὰς οὕτω λεγομένας καλάν- 
δας, καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα βότα, καὶ τὰ καλούμενα βρουμάλια, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ 
πρώτῃ τοῦ Μαρτίου μηνὸς ἡμέρᾳ τελουμένην πανήγυριν, καθάπαξ ἐκ τῆς 
τῶν πιστῶν πολιτείας περιαιρεθῆναι βουλόμεθα: ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰς τῶν γυ- 
ναίων δημοσίας ὀρχήσεις, πολλὴν λύμην καὶ βλάβην ἐμποιεῖν δυναμένας... 
ἀποπεμπόμεθα. 

Χ Vol. v. book xvi. ch. iv. § xvii. 

¥ Cone. Antissiodor. ο. i. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 957.) Non licet Kalendis Januarii 
vecolo aut cervolo facere, vel strenas diabolicas observare.—Sirmond and Labbe, 
instead of ‘ vecolo,’ read it § vetula,’ the old form of ¢ vitula.’ 

2 Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. i. p- 121.) 
Parem necesse est haberi reverentiam nostris etiam diebus, qui vel lucis auspi- 
cia, vel ortus imperii protulerunt. 





Id. lib. vi. tit. xxvi. de Proximis. (leg. xi. 
p. 156.) Genuinus natalis nostri dies, ete. Et leg. xvii. ibid. (p. 161.) 
Genuino die natalis mez Clementiz, ete. 





Cuap. 1. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 9 


are collected by Gothofred in great abundance*. Who also 
observes, “ That when it is said by ancient writers that Con- 
stantine was born in Britain, it is to be understood, according 
to this distinction, to mean his imperial birthday, and not his 
natural: for his natural birth was at Naissus, in Dacia?, as 
Pagi shows from many express testimonies of Julius Firmicus 
and Stephanus ‘de Urbibus,’ and other ancient writers; but 
his imperial birth, or inauguration to the empire, was in 
Britain. Which Baronius, and many other learned writers, 
mistaking for his natural birth, have thence concluded that 
he was born in Britain. But this only by the way. ‘These 
birthdays of the emperors, whether natural or political, were 
always of great esteem and veneration. The law of Theo- 
dosius orders them to be observed with the same reverence 
and ceremony as all other civil festivals; that is, to be days 
of vacation from public pleadings at the law: and on these 
days it was usual for great men to entertain the people with 
the public games and shows; which was partly to honour the 
days, and partly to give some diversion to the people. The 
preetor of Rome was obliged by his office to do this, as appears 
by several laws of Arcadius, in the Theodosian Code*. And 

a Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. leg. ii. p. 125. 

Ὁ Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 306. πὶ ix. (Lucee, vol. iii. p. 415.) Constantini 
Magni patriam fuisse Naissum, oppidum Dacie mediterraneze, nune Servize 
dictze, certum esse debet. Hoe enim Stephanus de Urbibus, qui nuper cum 
notis in Hollandia lucem vidit, Constantinus Porphyrogeneta (lib. ii. περὶ θεμά- 
των, Firmicus (lib. i. Matheseos sub initium), et Anonymus Valesianus disertis 
verbis docent: ‘ Hic igitur Constantinus natus Helena matre vilissima ’ (id est, 

‘infimze conditionis) ‘in oppido Naisso, atque eductus, quod oppidum postea 
magnifice ornavit, litteris minus instructus, obses apud Diocletianum et Gale- 
rium, sub iisdem fortiter in Asia militavit, inquit Anonymus Valesianus. Ac- 
cedit Cedrenus, qui Constantinum apud urbem Dacize natum seribit. Decepit 
Anglos aliosque viros doctissimos locus Panegyrici, Maximiano et Constantino 
dicti, in quo legitur, ‘ Liberavit ille’ (Constantius, Constantini M. pater) “ Bri- 
tannias servitute ; tu etiam nobiles esse illic oriendo fecisti.’ Quze et similia ita 
ab illis de Britannia accepta, quasi natus illie Constantinus esset: quum tamen 
oratoris mens sit, gratulari se, ibi ortum factumque imperatorem Constantinum, 
ac uno verbo de natali imperii, non de natali genuino loquatur. Quare, quod 
Constantinus Anglus sive Britannus fuerit, inter fabulas computandum. 

¢ Cod. Theod. lib. vi. tit. iv. de Preetoribus, leg. xxix. (Lugd. 1665. vol. ii. 
p. 66.) Przetores, Romanus et Laureatus, natalibus nostri numinis scenicas 
populo prebeant voluptates.——Id. leg. xxx. Ex quinque pretoribus, qui 


3 


10 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


the judges might be present at them once a-day, in the morn- 
ing", when they distributed money, some silver, some gold, 
according to their quality, among the people. And on these 
days the emperors’ statues, or images, were produced, for the 
people to pay their civil respect and veneration to them®; 
reserving Divine worship, and religious adoration, exceeding 
the dignity of man, to the Celestial Majesty alone, as the laws 
elegantly word it. But if it happened that any of these days 
fell upon a Sunday, then by a law of Theodosius the public 
games were omitted‘, and came not into the solemnity of the 
day. And Theodosius Junior excepted also the other great 
festivals of Christ's Nativity, and Epiphany, and Easter, and 
Pentecost, or the whole fifty days between Easter and Whit- 
suntide, on any of which days it was unlawful to exhibit the 
usual games to the people: and that no one should fear lest it 
should be interpreted a disrespect to the imperial majesty, if 
he did not, according to custom, exhibit the games on the 
emperors’ birthday (happening to fall on any of these festivals), 
he inserted a particular clause, declaring’, that such an omis- 


aqueeductui Theodosiaco fuerant deputati, unum, qui centum librarum argenti 
munificentiam suam definita erogatione preeeludit, zeterni principis ac fratris 
mei Honorii natalium festivitatibus preecipue deputari. 

ἃ Thid. lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectaculis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. v. p. 350.) 
Nullus omnino judicum aut theatralibus ludis, aut circensium certaminibus, aut 
ferarum cursibus vacet, nisi illis tantum diebus, quibus vel in lucem editi, vel 
imperii sumus sceptra sortiti: hisque, ut ante meridiem tantum solemnitati 
pareant, post epulas vero ad spectaculum redire desistant. (In quo tamen omnes 
Sive judices, sive privati, nihil penitus auri premio dandum esse cognoscent: 
quod solis licet consulibus, quibus erogandi moderationem vite meritis per- 
misimus. ) 

© Cod. Theod. tit. iv. de Imaginibus, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. v. p. 346.) Si 
quando nostrze statue vel imagines eriguntur, seu diebus (ut adsolet) festis, 
sive communibus, adsit judex, sine adorationis ambitioso fastigio, ut ornamentum 
dici, vel loco et nostrae recordationi, sui probet accessisse przesentiam. Ludis 
quoque simulacra proposita, tantum in animis concurrentum mentisque secretis 
nostrum numen et laudes vigere demonstret: excedens cultura hominum digni- 
tatem superno numini reservetur. 

f Ibid. lib. xv. de Spectaculis, leg. ii. Nullus solis die populo spectacula 
preebeat, nee divinam venerationem confecta solemnitate confundat. (P. 350.) 

§ Ibid. leg. v. Dominico (qui septimanz totius primus dies est), et natali atque 
Epiphaniorum Christi, Paschze etiam et Quinquagesimee diebus .. . omni the- 
atrorum atque Cirecensium voluptate, per universas urbes, earumdem populis 
denegata, totee Christianorum ac fidelium mentes Dei cultibus oceupantur. . . . 


Cuapr. I. § 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 11 


sion should be no offence, but most agreeable to have the 
service of the Divine Majesty preferred before that usual cere- 
mony of the games and shows in the celebration of his birth- 
day. And in this chiefly consisted the difference between an 
ecclesiastical and civil festival; that the one was a day of 
mere pleasure and diversion; and the other, a solemn time of 
devotion and religion, to which the former must give place, 
whenever they happened by any such coincidence to fall toge- 
ther. 


Secr. V.—Of the Natales Urbium, or the two Feri, in 
Memory of the Foundation of Rome and Constantinople. 


The last sort of civil festivals were the ‘natales urbium,’ or 
the two annual days kept in memory of the foundation of the 
two great cities, Rome and Constantinople. The former was 
an ancient Roman festival, observed on the eleventh of the 
Kalends of May, or the twenty-first of April, under the name 
of ‘ Palilia ;’ of which the reader may find a large account in 
any of the common writers of Roman antiquities". That 
which is only to be noted here, is, that it continued a festival 
under the Christian emperors: which we learn not only from 
the forementioned law of Theodosius, but also from Sozomen ; 
who says', “‘ That the γενέθλια. or ‘nativities of the emperors,’ 
and the royal cities, and the Kalends, were the usual times of 


Ne quis existimet, in honorem numinis nostri, veluti majcre quadam imperialis 
officii necessitate compelli, et nisi divina religione contemta spectaculis operam 
preestat, subeundam forsitan sibi nostree Serenitatis offensam, si minus circa nos 
devotionis ostenderit, quam solebat. Nemo ambigat, quod tune maxime Man- 
suetudini nostree ab humano genere defertur, quum virtutibus Dei omnipotentis 
ac meritis universi obsequium orbis impenditur. (Vol. v. p. 353.) 

h Dempster. Paralipom. ad Rosin. Antiquit. Roman. lib. i. ¢. i. p. 8. Condita 
fuit (Roma) xi. Kal. Maii: diversitas tamen opinicnum notanda est: nam 
quidam, inter quos Marianus Scotus, ix. Kal. Maias ; alii, x. Kal. Maias ; quam 
sententiam probat Plutarchus, et Eutropius lib. i.; et ex eo Paul. Diacon., 
Histor. Miscellee, lib. i.: sed tamen certior auctorum consensus in xi. Kal. Maias 
fundamenta urbis jacta rejicit, id est, in ‘ Parilia’ sive ‘ Palilia,’ pastorum deze 
solemnitatem, ete. 

1 Sozom. lib. v. 6. xvii. (Reading, 1720. p. 206, 6.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. 
Ρ. 505, C.) ᾿Επεὶ καιρὸς παρῆν, βασιλέα δωρεῖσθαι στρατιώταις, γίνεται δὲ 
τοῦτο ὡς ἐπίπαν ἐν ταῖς Ῥωμαίων ἱερομηνίαις, καὶ βασιλέων, καὶ βασιλίδων 


πόλεων ἐν γενεθλίοις ἡμέραις, K. T. Δ. 


19 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 
distributing the emperors’ donations or largesses among the 
soldiers.” And Cassiodore speaks of the games of the Circus‘, 
as an usual part of the people’s entertainment on these fes- 
tivals of pleasure. The ‘ enczenia,’ or ‘ dedication’ of Constan- 
tinople, was annually celebrated on the fifth of the Ides of 
May, that is, the eleventh of May, as is noted by Gothofred 
out of Marcellinus Comes, Cassiodore, Cedrenus, the ‘ Chroni- 
con Alexandrinum,’ and Zonaras. And as in all things both 
the ancient laws and canons gave Constantinople the same 
royal and honourable privileges that were allowed to old 
Rome’; so in this they were equalled, that the annual days 
of their dedication were celebrated with the same solemnities 
among the ‘ ferize,’ or ‘civil festivals,’ and days of vacation and 
joyfulness throughout the Roman empire. And the reason of 
this is given in the aforesaid law of Theodosius, so often men- 
tioned™, because these two great cities, Rome and Constanti- 


k Cassiodor. Chronic. in Philipp. Imperat. (Max. B. V. P. vol. xi. p. 1364, 
A 3.) (Inter Historize Roman. Seriptores, tom. i. p. 617, Francof. 1588.) His 
coss. millesimus annus urbis [Rome] expletus est: ob quam solemnitatem 
innumerabiles Philippus cum [Philippo] filio suo bestias in Cireo magno inter- 
fecit, ludosque in Campo Martio theatrales tribus diebus ac noctibus populo 
pervigilante celebravit: quadraginta etiam missus natali Romanz urbis con- 
currerunt, et agon mille annorum actus. 

1 Cone. Constantinop. I. 6. iii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 947.) Τὸν μέν τοι Κων- 
σταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς 
Cone. Chaleed. 
ec. xxvii. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 769.) ἸΤανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ὕροις 


‘Pw 2 Ψ,. ὃ ‘ ‘ 7 ᾽ ‘ , “Pé 
WUC ἑπισκοπον, (a@ TO ειναι αὐτὴν νεᾶαν ὠωμην. 





ἑπόμενοι, καὶ τὸν ἀρτίως ἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν py’ (150) θεοφιλεστά- 
των ἐπισκόπον γνωρίζοντες, τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομεν, καὶ Ψψηφιζόμεθα 
περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας 
Ῥώμης" καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης, διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν 
πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα" καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ 
σκοπῷ κινούμενοι οἱ θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν 
τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ 
συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσαν πόλιν, καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ 
πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῳ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ἐκείνην, μεγα- 
Cod. 
Theod. lib. xvi. de Episcopis, tit. ii. leg. xlv. (vol. vi. p. 89.) Si quid dubietatis 
emerserit, id oporteat non absque scientia viri reverendissimi sacrosanctz legis 


λύνεσθαι πράγμασι, δευτέραν μετ᾽ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν, κ. τ. λ. 





Antistitis urbis Constantinopolitanze, quae Rom veteris preerogativa letatur, 


conventui sacerdotali sanctoque judicio reservari. Id. lib. xiv. tit. xiii. 





(vol. v. p. 220.) de Jure Italico Urbis Constantinopol. 
m See above, ch. i. ὃ ii. note (a). 


Cuap. 11. 81. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 13 
nople, were the fountains and springs from whence the laws 
were originally derived; and, therefore, it was proper that the 
feasts of their dedication should be observed by a vacation 
from lawsuits on the annual days of their foundation. This is 
the short account of the civil ‘ferie, or ‘festivals, so far as 
concerns their observation under the government and allow- 
ance of Christian emperors. I now proceed to the other sort 
of festivals, which were of sacred or ecclesiastical observation. 





CHAPTER 11. 


OF THE ORIGINAL AND OBSERVATION OF THE LORD’S-DAY 
AMONG CHRISTIANS. 


Secr. 1.—The Lord’s-Day of continued Observation in the 
Church from the Days of the Apostles, under the Names of 
Sunday, the Lord’s-Day, the first Day of the Week, and the 
Day of breaking Bread, &c. 


Tue principal and most noted among the sacred and eccle- 
siastical festivals was always that of the Lord’s-day, which was 
observed with great veneration in the ancient Church from the 
very time of the apostles. The apostles themselves are often 
said to meet on this day for Divine service, being the day of 
the Lord’s resurrection (Acts xx. 7): ‘On the first day of 
the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, 
Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and 
continued his speech until midnight.” So, again (1 Cor. xvi. 2) : 
“Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by 
him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no 
gatherings when I come.” And St. John expressly styles it 
the Lord’s-day (Rev. i. 10): “I was in the spirit on the 
Lord’s-day.”. Which cannot mean the Jewish Sabbath, for 
then he would have called it so; nor any other day of the 
week, for that had been ambiguous ; but the day on which 
Christ arose from the dead, on which the apostles were used 


14 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


to meet to celebrate Divine service, on which Paul had ordered 
collections to be made, according to the custom of the Primi- 
tive Church. Seeing, therefore, he speaks of this as a day 
well known and used in the Church, it cannot be doubted, but 
that it was distinguished by this name from the received use 
and custom of the Church: for, otherwise, how could Chris- 
tians have understood what St. John intended to signify by 
this name, if he had designed to denote any other day by 
it? as Mr. Turretin argues well upon the resolution of this 
question *. 

The matter, thus founded in apostolical practice, may be 
further illustrated and confirmed from the general usage of the 
Church in the following ages. Pliny, who was a heathen 
magistrate in the reign of Trajan, not long after St. John’s 
death, took the account of the Christian assemblies from the 
mouths of some apostatizing Christians ; and they told him», 
“their custom was to meet together early in the morning, 
before it was light, on a certain fixed day, and sing hymns to 
Christ, as their God, and bind themselves with a sacrament 
to do no evil, and afterwards to partake of a common feast.” 
Which is a plain description of the service of the Lord’s-day, 
and particularly of the ‘agape,’ or ‘feast of charity,’ which 
was usually an attendant of the communion in the Primitive 
Church every Lord’s-day. Ignatius, who lived about the same 
time, makes as plain a reference to the observation of the 


ἃ Institut. Theol. Elenchtic. part. ii. loc. xi. de lege Dei, queest. xiv. (Genev. 
1688. p. 103.) Non sane Sabbato Judzeorum, quod procul dubio nominasset, non 
aliquo tantum die septimanz, qnia sie ambiguus esset titulus ad implicandum 
potius, quam explicandum comparatus, sed die illo, quo Christus resurrexerat, 
quo convenire solebant apostoli ad sacra peragenda, et quo Paulus ordinaverat 
collectas habendas, prout moris erat in primitiva ecclesia. Quum ergo de illa die 
tamquam nota et in ecclesia usitata loquatur, dubium non est, quin ex recepto 
ecclesize usu hoe nomine insignita sit. Quis enim alias Christianorum intellex- 
isset, quid Joannes hae appellatiene significasset, si quam aliam diem designare 
voluisset ? 

 Plin. lib. ix. ep. xevi. (Gierig, Lips. 1802. vol. ii. p. 514.) Quod essent soliti 
stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum 
invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne 
latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati 
abnegarent: quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coéundi 
ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium. 


Car. II. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 15 


Lord’s-day*, when he bids the Magnesians not to sabbatize 
with the Jews, but to lead a life agreeable to the Lord’s-day, 
on which our life was raised from the dead, by him (that is, by 
the Lord Christ), and by his death. Clemens Alexandrinus 4, 
as Cotelerius observes, well illustrates and explains this pas- 
sage of Ignatius, showing what it is to lead a life conformable 
to the Lord’s-day, when he says, ‘‘ He that observes the pre- 
cept of the Gospel, makes it to be the Lord’s-day ; whilst he 
casts away every evil thought, and takes to him the true 
gnostic thoughts of wisdom and knowledge, thereby glorifying 
the resurrection of the Lord.” 

Hence we learn that κυριακὴ was the common name of the 
Lord’s-day, and that κυριακὴν ζῇν is ‘to lead a life conform- 
able to the Lord’s-day,’ in memory of our Saviour’s resurrec- 
tion. Yet sometimes the ancients, when they write to the 
Gentiles, scruple not to call it ‘Sunday,’ to distinguish it by 
the name best known to them. As Justin Martyr, writing 
his Apology to the Heathen, says*, “‘ We all meet together 
on Sunday, on which God, having changed darkness and mat- 
ter, created the world; and on this day Jesus Christ our 
Saviour arose from the dead.” In like manner Tertullian £, 
answering the objection made by the heathens, that the Chris- 
tians worshipped the sun, says, “ Indeed they made Sunday a 
day of joy, but for other reasons than to worship the sun, 
which was no part of their religion.” At other times, when 
he writes only to Christians, he commonly uses the name of 


¢ Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. n. ix. (Oxon. 1708. p. 64.) Μηκέτι σαββατίζοντες, 
ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες, ἐν ἢ καὶ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν, Ov αὐτοῦ, 
καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. See Coteler. vol. ii. p. 20. 

4 Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. (Oberthiir, vol. vi. p. 490.) ᾿Εντολὴν τὴν κατὰ τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον διαπραξάμενος, κυριακὴν ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν ποιεῖ, ὅτ᾽ ἂν 
ἀποβάλλῃ φαῦλον νόημα, καὶ γνωστικὸν προσλάβῃ, τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἀνάστασιν δοξάζων. 

e Justin. Apol. i, (Paris. 1742. p. 84, A 5.) Τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡμέραν κοινῇ 
πάντες τὴν συνέλευσιν ποιούμεθα: ἐπειδὰν πρώτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα, ἐν ἡ ὁ Θεὸς 
τὸ σκότος καὶ τὴν ὕλην τρέψας, κόσμον ἐποίησε" καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὁ 
ἡμέτερος Σωτὴρ, τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνέστη. 

f Tertul. Apol. ¢. xvi. (Paris. 1664. p. 16, Β.) Adque si Diem Solis leetitize 
It. lib. i. ad Nation. 
e. xiii, (p. 50.) Alii solem Christianum Deum estimant, quod innotuerit ad 





indulgemus, alia longe ratione quam religione solis, ete. 


Orientis partem facere nos precationem, vel Die Solis Izetitiam curare. 


16 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


the Lord’s-day 8, and especially when he would distinguish it 
from the Jewish Sabbath". And the like may be observed in 
the laws of the first Christian emperors. Constantine uses 
the name Sunday’, when he forbids all lawsuits on this day. 
Valentinian uses the same name upon the same occasion *. So 
does also Valentinian Junior!, and Theodosius Senior, and 
Theodosius Junior, in settling the observation of this day. 
But they use the name indifferently, styling it sometimes the 
Lord’s-day, which was more proper among Christians, as is 
particularly noted in one of the laws of the younger Valen- 
tinian, which runs thus: ‘Solis die, quem Dominicum rite 
dixere majores, ὅσο. ‘On Sunday, which our forefathers have 
rightly and customarily called the Lord’s-day™. His refer- 
ence to ancient custom is confirmed not only from what has 
been alleged out of Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and 
Tertullian, but from the use of the word κυριακὴ, in the epistle 
of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to Pope Soter, recorded by 
Eusebius", where he says, ‘To-day we observed the Lord’s 
holy day,’ τὴν κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν. And from 
what Eusebius says of Melito, bishop of Sardis°®, “ That he 


8 Ibid. de Coron. Mil. ο. 11. (1664. p. 102.) Die Dominico jejunium nefas 
ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. 

h [bid. de Jejun. c. xv. (p. 553.) Exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis. 

i Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. i. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. i. p. 118.) 
Sicut indignissimum videbatur, diem Solis, venerationis suze celebrem, altercan- 
tibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus occupari, ita gratum ac jucundum 
est, eo die quee sunt maxime votiva, compleri. 

k ΤΡΙΑ. leg. ii. (p. 121.) Kalendarum Januariarum consuetos dies otio sanci- 
mus. ... Nee non et Dies Solis, ete. 

1 Cod. Theod. lib. viii. tit. viii. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. ii. p. 589.) de Executori- 
bus, leg. i. Die Solis neminem Christianum ab exactoribus volumus conveniri, 
ete. Leg. iii, Solis Die, quem Dominicum rite dixere majores, omnium 
omnino litium, negotiorum, conventionum quiescat intentio, ete. Lib. xi. 
tit. vil. de Exactionibus, leg. x. (vol. iv. p. 74.) Die Solis... qui dudum 
faustus (al. festus) habetur, ete. 
dixere majores, ete. 











Leg. xiii. Solis Die, quem Dominicum rite 
Lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectaculis, leg. ii. (vol. v. p. 350.) 
Nullus Solis Die populo spectacula przebeat, ete. 

m 1014, lib. xi. tit. vil. de Exactionibus, leg. xiii. (vol. iv. p. 76.) Solis Die, 
quem Dominicum rite dixere majores, ete. 

n Kuseb. lib. iv. ὁ. xxiii. (Reading, 1720. p. 187, 6.) (Vales. Amstel. 1695. 
p- 117, D.) Τὴν σήμερον οὖν κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν. 

© Ibid. lib. iv. 6. xxvi. (Reading, p. 128, 23.) Μελίτωνος τὰ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα 
Ovo... καὶ ὁ περὶ κυριακῆς λόγος. 





Crap. 11. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 17 
wrote a book, περὶ κυριακῆς, ‘concerning the Lord’s-day.’” 
In like manner Irenzeus, in his epistle to Pope Victor, says ?, 
“ The mystery of the Lord’s resurrection, or the Paschal fes- 
tival, ought to be kept only ‘on the Lord’s-day,’” 7) τῆς 
κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳς And Origen, to distinguish it from the 
Jewish Sabbath, says4, “that manna was rained down from 
heaven on the Lord’s-day, and not on the Sabbath, to show 
the Jews, that even then the Lord’s-day was preferred before 
it.” This evidences not only the antiquity of the name, but 
that the observation of the day, in memory of our Lord's 
resurrection, was the universal practice of the Church from 
the time of the apostles. And from one solemn act of break- 
ing bread, in the constant celebration of the eucharist on this 
day, I have once before observed’, out of Chrysostom, that it 
is sometimes called ‘dies panis,’ ‘the day of bread,’ because 
it was the general custom in the Primitive Church to meet for 
breaking of bread, and receiving of the communion, on every 
Lord’s-day throughout the year. And I shall not need here 
to be more particular concerning this, or any other part of the 
public service performed on the Lord’s-day, such as psalmody, 
reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and praying, and exer- 
cising discipline upon penitents, and absolving them, because 
I have treated largely of these, in their order, in several books 
before ; but now only take notice of some special laws and 
customs that were observed, to show a more peculiar reverence, 
honour, and respect, to the supereminent dignity of this day. 


P Ibid. lib. v. ο. xxiv. (Reading, p. 245, 15.) (Amstel. p. 156, C.) Ὁ Eipn- 
ναῖος ... παρίσταται μὲν τὸ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι μυστήριον. 

4 Origen. Hom. vii. in Exod. xv. (Bened. Paris. 1733. vol. ii. p. 154, A 3.) 
Quod si ex Divinis Seripturis hoe constat, quod die Dominica Deus pluit manna 
de ccelo, et in Sabbato non pluit, intelligant Judzei jam tune preelatam esse 
Dominicam nostram Judaico Sabbato, ete. Hippolytus, Ep. Can. Paschal. 
(Hamburg. 1716. p. 40.) ΑΙ KYPIAKAI TOY ITACXA. and p. 38. ENITECH 
KYPIAKH. See also, Gothofred. in Cod. Theodos. vol. ii. p. 592. Lugd. 1665. 
et Bibl. V. P. Galland. vol. ii. p. 518. ΑΠΟΜΝΗΣΤΉΣΕΣΘΑΙ AE ΔΕΙ͂. 

ΤΟ Vol. v. p. 358. book xv, ch, ix. § ii. 





VOL. VII. C 


18 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Secr, I].—AU Proceedings at Law forbidden and suspended on 
this Day, except such as were of absolute Necessity or great 
Charity: as Manumission of Slaves, Sc. 


Among these we may reckon, in the first place, those impe- 
rial laws, which suspended all actions and proceedings at the 
law on this day, whether arrests, pleadings, exactions, sen- 
tences of judges, or executions: except only such as were of 
absolute necessity, or some eminent charity, as the manumis- 
sion of slaves, or granting them their freedom ; which was not 
forbidden, because it was an act of considerable charity and 
great mercy. This was the same respect as the old Roman 
laws had paid to their ‘ferize,’ or ‘ festivals,’ in times of idol- 
atry and superstition. But, as then the Lord’s-day was of no 
account among the heathen, so no exemption was made in 
its favour ; but this was juridical, as well as any other, till 
Constantine made the first law to exempt it. And now also 
the Christian laws, concerning the observation of the Lord’s- 
day, which exempted it from being juridical, still admitted of 
some exceptions, as the heathen laws in relation to their 
‘feriee”’ had done before them. The exceptions made by the 
heathen laws are particularly specified by Ulpian’, out of the 
edicts of Trajan and Marcus Antoninus, where the hearing of 
all causes of absolute necessity and great charity, and about all 
military affairs, are allowed on their festivals : as the appoint- 


5. Digest. lib. ii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. ii. iii. ix. (Amstel. 1663. p. 94.) Divus 
Marcus effecit de aliis speciebus preetorem adiri, etiam diebus feriaticis: ut 
puta, ut tutores aut curatores dentur, ut officiis admoveantur cessantes, excu- 
sationes adlegentur, alimenta constituantur, zetates probentur, ventris nomine 
in possessionem mittatur, vel rei servandze causa, vel legatorum fidei, vel com- 
missorum vel damni infecti: item de testamentis exhibendis, ut curator detur 
bonorum ejus, qui an heeres exstiturus sit, incertum est: aut de alendis liberis, 
parentibus, patronis, aut de adeunda suspecta hereditate: aut ut aspectu atrox 
injuria cestimetur ; vel fidei commissaria libertas preestanda. Solet etiam mes- 
sis vindemiarumque tempore jus dici de rebus, que tempore vel morte peri- 
turee sunt: morte, veluti furti, damni, injurize, injuriarum atrocium, qui de 
incendio, ruina, naufragio, rate, nave expugnata rapuisse dicantur, et si que 
similes sunt; item si res tempore periturze sunt, aut actionis dies exiturus est. 
... Divus Trajanus Minucio Natali rescripsit, ferias a forensibus tantum nego- 
tiis dare vacationem: ea autem, quie ad disciplinam militarem pertinent, etiam 
feriatis diebus peragenda. 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 19 


ing of curators and guardians to orphans, and causes relating 
to matters of preservation and damage, and legacies and trusts, 
and exhibiting of wills, and maintenance of children, parents, 
and patrons: and all causes wherein a man might suffer great 
damage either by delay or by death, as in case of theft, or 
great injuries and losses by fire, or shipwreck, or piracies, or 
any cases of the like nature. Now, as the old Roman laws 
exempted the festivals of the heathen from all juridical busi- 
ness, and suspended all processes and pleadings, except in the 
forementioned cases; so Constantine ordered that the same 
honour and respect should be paid to the Lord’s-day ; that it 
should be a day of perfect vacation from all prosecutions, and 
pleadings, and business of the law, except where any case of 
great necessity or charity required a juridical process and 
public transaction : for such cases were always thought to be 
consistent with the design of the rest both of the Sabbath and 
the Lord’s-day, as our Lord himself had interpreted the law 
of the Sabbath in many cases of beneficence and doing good, 
both by his doctrine and his example. Therefore Constantine 
peremptorily forbade all his judges to hear any causes, either 
criminal or civil, on this day‘, except such as could not be 
deferred without entrenching upon the rules of charity: which 
sort of actions and causes the law ealls ‘ votiva,’ ‘ good offices,” 
such as the emancipation or manumission of slaves, which he 
allows any one to perform, in a legal manner, on this day, and 
there should lie no prohibition against them. Honorius, in 
like manner, excepts the causes that were commenced against 
the ‘navicularii", or ‘masters of vessels,’ transporting the 
public corn from Afric to Rome: if any fraud was suspected 


’ 

τ Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. voi. i. p. 118.) 
Sicut indignissimum videbatur, Diem Solis, veneratione sui celebrem, alterean- 
tibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus occupari, ita gratum ae jueundum 
est, eo die, quee sunt maxime votiva, compleri: atque ideo emancipandi et 
manumittendi die festo cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus non 
prohibeantur. Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. leg. ii, (Amstel. 1663. p. 59.) Ut 
in die Dominico emancipare ac manumittere liceat, reliquae cause vel lites qui- 
escant, ete. 

ἃ Cod. Theod. lib. xiii. tit. v. de Naviculariis, leg. xxxviii. (v. 90.) Hujus- 
modi inquisitio etiam diebus feriatis et devotionum, absque ulla observatione, 
peragenda est. 





ΟΣ 


a 


2—) THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 
in them, they were to be examined by torture upon any 
festivals or days of devotion, without delay or molestation : 
because the preservation of the public corn was a matter of 
great concern to the public welfare of Rome,—bread being the 
staff of life: and therefore inquisition into such frauds was 
proper to be made upon any day whatsoever without excep- 
tion. For the same reason, Honorius and Theodosius Junior, 
by another law”, ordered prosecution to be made against the 
Isaurian pirates on any day, not excepting Lent or Easter- 
day : lest the discovery of wicked designs should be delayed, 
which was to be effected only by putting the robbers to the 
rack in their examination ; which, it was to be hoped, the 
great God would readily pardon, seeing the preservation and 
safety of many innocent men was procured thereby. So that, 
in such cases, where mercy and charity, or the necessities of 
the public good, were concerned, all days were juridical ; and 
actions at law might be prosecuted on the Lord’s-day as well 
as any other. But excepting these particular cases, the pro- 
secution of lawsuits on this day was universally forbidden. 
Valentinian Senior prohibited all arrests of men for debt *, 
whether public or private, on this day. For no man might be 
convened, even by the exactors of the public revenues, under 
pain of incurring the emperor’s highest displeasure for the 
breach of his law. Valentinian Junior speaks a little more 
expressly Y¥: ‘‘On Sunday, which our forefathers rightly called 


w Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxxv. de Queestionibus, leg. vii. (Lugd. vol. iii. 
p. 255.) Provinciarum judices moneantur, ut in Isaurorum latronum queestioni- 
bus nullum quadragesimze nee venerabilem Pascharum diem existiment exci- 
piendum: ne differatur sceleratorum proditio consiliorum, quze per latronum 
tormenta quzerenda est ; quum facillime in hoe summi Numinis speratur venia, 
per quod multorum salus et incolumitas procuratur. 

x Ibid. lib. viii. tit. viii. de Executoribus, leg. i. (vol. ii. p. 589.) Die Solis, 
qui dudum faustus habetur, neminem Christianum ab exactoribus volumus 
conveniri; contra eos, qui id facere ausi sint, hoe nostri statuti interdicto peri- 
culum sancientes. This is repeated Cod. Theod. lib. xi. tit. vii. de Exactionibus, 
leg. x. 

Υ Ibid. leg. iii. Solis die, quem Dominicum rite dixere majores, omnium 
omnino litium, negotiorum, conventionum quiescat intentio. Debitum publi- 
cum privatumve nullus efflagitet: ne apud ipsos quidem arbitros, vel in judiciis 
flagitatos, vel sponte delectos, ulla sit agnitio jurgiorum, Et non modo nota- 
bilis, verum etiam sacrilegus judicetur, qui a sanctze religionis instituto rituve 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ΟἹ 


the Lord’s-day, let all prosecution of causes, controversial 
business, and disputes, be wholly laid aside: let no one demand 
either a public or a private debt: let there be no hearing of 
causes either before arbitrators appointed by law, or volun- 
tarily chosen: and let him be accounted not only infamous, 
but sacrilegious also, whoever departs from the rule and cus- 
tom of our holy religion.” And the same Valentinian, toge- 
ther with Theodosius the Great, has another law’, wherein he 
appoints all Sundays in the year to be days of vacation from 
all business of the law whatsoever, according to the observation 
of other festivals. 


Sect. II].—AJ/l Secular Business forbidden, except such as 
Necessity or Charity compelled Men to, as Gathering of their 
Fruits in Harvest, by some Laws. 


Neither was it only business of the law, but all other secular 
and servile labour and employments that were superseded on 
this day, except only such as men were called to by necessity 
or some great charity,—as earing and harvest, which at first 
were allowed on this day, that men might not be disappointed 
of their seasons; and the visiting of prisoners by the bishops 
and judges, which was so far from intrenching upon the sacred 
rest of this day, that it was a necessary office of mercy and 
charity, which the laws enjoined them. Eusebius, in the Life 
of Constantine 8, takes notice of two laws made by him in rela- 
tion to his army, whom he obliged to rest from all military 
exercise on this day. And whereas some of them were hea- 
thens, and some Christians, by the first law he obliged that 


deflexerit. This is repeated Cod. Theod. lib. xi. tit. vii. de Exactionibus, leg. 
xiii. 

z Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol.i. p. 121.) 
Nee non et dies Solis, qui repetito in se ealculo revolvuntur, in eadem observa- 
tione numeramus. See also, to the same purpose, the law of Leo and Anthemius, 
Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. xi. (Amstel. 1663. p. 89.) Dominicum 
itaque diem ita semper honorabilem decernimus et venerandum ; ut a cunctis 
exsequutionibus excusetur: nulla quemquam urgeat admonitio: nulla fidejus- 
sionis flagitetur exactio: taceat apparitio : advocatio delitescat: sit ille dies a 
cognitionibus alienus: preeconis horrida vox silescat : respirent a controversiis 
litigantes, et habeant foederis intervallum, ete. 

a Euseb. Vit. Constantin. lib. iv. 6. xviii-xx. tot. (Reading, 1720. p. 179.) 


29 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


part of his army, which were Christians, to repair with all 
diligence to the Church of God: and that they might have 
more liberty and leisure to attend their prayers there, he dis- 
charged them from all other business and employment on that 
day. As to the other part of the army, which were still hea- 
thens, he obliged them, by a second law, to repair into the 
open fields, and there, having laid aside their arms, with one 
consent, upon a signal given, with hands and: minds lift up to 
heaven, to address their supplications to God, the supreme 
King of all. And, for this end, he gave them a form of prayer 
of his own composing; “ποὺ willing,” says the historian, 
“that they should confide in their spears or armour, or in 
the strength of their bodies, but acknowledge the supreme 
God, who is the author of all good things; and that they 
should think it their duty to make solemn supplication unto 
him.” Sozomen takes notice of the same thing”, when he 
relates how Constantine appointed, that the Lord’s-day (which 
the Hebrews call the first day of the week, and the Greeks 
dedicate to the sun), and also the day before the Sabbath, 
should be days of vacation from lawsuits and all other secular 
business, and that men should worship God on these days, with 
supplication and prayer: and this honour he showed to the 
Lord’s-day, because it was the day of our Lord’s resurrection ; 
and to the other, because it was the day of his crucifixion. 
Valesius thinks ἢ, that Sozomen was mistaken in saying, that 
Constantine made Friday a day of vacation from juridical busi- 


> Sozom. lib. i. ὁ. viii, (Vales. p. 336, C.) (Reading, p. 19. 42.) Τὴν δὲ 
κυριακὴν καλουμένην ἡμέραν, ἣν “EBpatoer πρώτην τῆς ἑβδομάδος ὀνομά- 
ζουσιν, “Ἕλληνες δὲ ἡλίῳ ἀνατιθέασι, καὶ τὴν πρὸ τῆς ἑβδόμης, ἐνομοθέτησε 
δικαστηρίων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πραγμάτων σχολὴν ἄγειν πάντας, καὶ ἐν 
εὐχαῖς καὶ λιταῖς τὸ θεῖον θεραπεύειν" ἐτίμα δὲ τὴν κυριακὴν, ὡς ἐν ταύτῃ 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναστάντος ἐκ νεκρῶν" τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν, ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ σταυρω- 
θέντος. 

© Vales. in Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. iv. e. xviii. (Reading, 1720. p. 635.) 
In Sozomeni verbis nonnihil difficultatis oceurrit, quod quidem spectat ad diem 
Veneris. Vix enim mihi persuadere possum, Constantinum preecepisse, ut eo 
die a judiciis abstinerent. Certe Eusebius id non dicit de Veneris die, sed 
tantum de die Dominico. Exstat Constantini lex in Codice Theodosiano, titulo 
de Feriis, in qua dies tantum Dominicus excipitur. Itaque id de suo admensus 
est Sozomenus. Qui quum sua tate id observari videret Constantinopoli, Con- 
stantinum ejus rei auctorem fuisse credidit. 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 93 


ness ; and that he spake rather according to the usage of his 
own times, when the practice might be so; but as to the 
Lord’s-day there is no dispute : for not only Eusebius, but the 
law itself, still extant in the Theodosian Code, makes it a day 
of vacation from all juridical actions; and there is another 
law in the Justinian Code, which not only forbids pleadings at 
law, and judges keeping courts on this day; but all other 
secular business in the city 4, and all working at any art or 
trade : only allowmg husbandmen in the country to work at 
their agriculture, because it often happens that no time is 
more seasonable for sowing corn, or planting vines; and he 
thought it not reasonable to let the commodious moment slip, 
which the providence of God put into their hands. By a law 
of Honorius®, the judges also were not only allowed, but 
enjoined, to visit the prisons every Lord’s-day, and have the 
prisoners brought before them, to examine whether the keepers 
of the prison denied them any office of humanity, which the 
law allowed them: and they were to grant necessary subsist- 
ence to those that wanted it, allowing the gaoler two or three 
‘sesterces,’ or deniers, a-day, to provide food for the poor ; 
and they were also to give orders that the prisoners should be 
carried out of prison, under a sufficient guard, to bathe or 
wash themselves on this day. And if any judges, or their 
officers under them, acted in contempt of these rules, they 


ἃ Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. iii. (Amstel. 1663. p. 89.) Omnes 
judices urbanzeque plebes et cunctarum artium officia venerabili die solis 
quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum culturz libere licenterque inserviant : 
quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis aut vineze 
scrobibus mandentur: ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas ccelesti pro- 
visione concessa. 

€ Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. iii. de Custodia Reorum, leg. vii. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 40.) Judices omnibus Dominicis diebus productos reos e custodia 
carcerali videant, interrogent, ne his humanitas clausis per corruptos carcerum 
* eustodes denegetur: victualem substantiam non habentibus faciant ministrari, 
libellis duobus (legend. duabus) aut tribus diurnis, vel quod (id est quodeum- 
que) cestimaverint commentariensi decretis, quorum (leg. quarum) sumtibus 
proficiunt alimonize pauperum, quos ad lavacrum sub fida custodia duci oportet: 
multa judicibus viginti librarum auri: et Officiis eorum ejusdem ponderis consti- 
tuta ; ordinibus quoque trium librarum auri multa proposita, si saluberrime sta- 
tuta contemserint. Nee deerit antistitum Christiane religionis cura laudabilis, 
que ad observationem constituti judicis hane ingerat monitionem. 


D4 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


were to be fined twenty pounds of gold, and the city-magis- 
trates three pounds. And the bishop of the place was also to 
contribute his laudable care, to put the judges in mind of their 
duty in this particular. We find a like rule made in France 
by the fifth Council of Orleans‘, under King Childebert, anno 
549, where it is ordered, ‘That the archdeacon, or provost of 
the church, should every Lord’s-day visit the prisoners, for 
whatever crimes they were put in durance, that the necessities 
of those that lay bound in prison might mercifully be relieved, 
according to the command of God: and the bishop was to ap- 
point some faithful and diligent person to provide them neces- 
saries, and to see that they had a competent sustenance out 
of the Church.” This was an act of great mercy, and there- 
fore justly excepted from the common works and employments 
that were forbidden on the Lord’s-day. However, in the 
Justinian Code’, this work is transferred from the Lord’s-day 
to Wednesdays and Fridays, which were days also of church- 
assemblies, but not so strictly observed as the Lord’s-day. 
And by other laws", that liberty which Constantine granted 
to countrymen, to follow their works of husbandry on the 
Lord’s-day, was, in a great measure, restrained. Private 
writers, and the canons of the Church, also run against it. 
Trenzeus, expounding the law of the Sabbath, thus expresses 
his sense of it': ‘Though the law did not forbid those that 
were hungry, to take meat, and eat of such things as were 
next at hand; yet ‘metere et colligere in horreum yetabat,’ 
‘it did forbid men to reap and carry into barns.” (Exod. 
xxxiv. 21); ‘Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh 


f Cone, Aurel. V. ὁ. xx. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 396.) Qui pro quibuscumque 
eulpis in carceribus deputantur, ab archidiacono seu a preeposito ecclesize diebus 
Dominicis requirantur, ut necessitas vinctorum secundum preeceptum Divinum 
misericorditer sublevetur: atque a pontifice, instituta fideli et diligenti persona, 
qui necessaria provideat, competens victus de dono ecclesize tribuatur. 

& Cod. Justin. lib. ix. tit. iv. de Custodia Reorum, leg. vi. (Amstel. 1663. 
Ρ. 289.) Oportet autem episcopum per quartam feriam aut Parasceuen inqui- 
rere eos, qui sunt in custodia, ete. 

h Leo, Novell. liv. (Codex Justin. p. 258.) Kai μήτε γεωργὸν μήτε τινὰ 
ἅπτεσθαι ἔργων ἐν ταύτῃ τῶν μὴ νενομισμένων. 

i ren. lib. iv. ὁ. xx. (Venet. 1734. vol. i. p. 236.) Esurientes accipere Sabba- 
tis escam ex his quee adjacebant, non vetabat lex: metere autem et colligere in 
horreum vetabat. 


Cuap. 11. ὃ ὃ. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 95 


day thou shalt rest: in earing-time and harvest, thou shalt 
rest.” Tertullian, in like manner, says*, “The law of the 
Sabbath forbids all human works, but not Divine. Conse- 
quently it forbids all those works which are enjoined on the 
six days, namely, thy own works, that is, human works, or 
works of their daily vocation. But such a work, as the Le- 
vites’ carrying about the ark on the Sabbath, was no human 
or common work, but sacred and Divine, by God’s express 
command.” St. Austin, or whoever was the author of the 
sermons ‘ De Tempore,’ says}, “‘ The apostles transferred the 
observation of the Sabbath to the Lord’s-day; and therefore, 
from the evening of the Sabbath to the evening of the Lord’s- 
day, men ought to abstain from all country work and secular 
business, and only attend Divine service.” Some think this 
homily is one of Czesarius Arelatensis, a French bishop, which 
is very probable ; for the French councils, about his time, are 
very express in forbidding works of husbandry on the Lord’s- 
day. The third Council of Orleans distinguishes between the 
Jewish and Christian way of observing the Lord’s day™: 


k Tertul. cont. Marcionem, lib. ii. ο. xxi. (Hal. 1827. vol. i. p. 86.) Contra- 
rietates preeceptorum ei exprobras, ut mobili et instabili, prohibentis Sabbatis 
operari, et jubentis arcam circumferri per dies octo, id est, etiam Sabbato, in 
expugnatione civitatis Hiericho. Nee Sabbati enim inspicis legem, opera 
humana, non Divina, prohibentem, ‘ Siquidem sex,’ inquit, ‘ diebus operare, et 
facies omnia opera tua.’ Septima autem die Sabbata Domino Deo tuo; non 
facies in ea omne opus; quod utique tuum. Consequens enim est, ut ea opera 
Sabbato auferret, quee sex diebus supra indixerat, tua scilicet, id est, humana et 
quotidiana. Arcam vero cirecumferre, neque quotidianum opus videri potest, 
neque humanum; sed et rarum et sacrosanctum, et ex ipso tune Dei przecepto 
utique Divinum. 

1 Aug. Hom. ecli. de Tempore. (Bened. vol. v. app. p. 330.) Ideo sancti docto- 
res ecclesize decreverunt omnem gloriam Judaici sabbatismi in diem Dominicam 
transferre, ut, quod ipsi in figura, nos celebraremus in veritate. . . . Observe- 
mus ergo diem Dominicam et sanctificemus illam, sicut antiquis preeceptum est 
de Sabbato, dicente Legislatore, ‘a vespere usque ad vesperam celebrabitis 
Sabbata vestra.’? Videamus ne otium nostrum vanum sit, sed a vespera diei 
Sabbati, usque ad vesperam diei Dominici, sequestrati a rurali opere et ab omni 
negotio, soli Divino cultui vacemus. 

m Cone. Aurel. III. ¢. xxviii. (Labbe, vol. v.) Quia persuasum est populis, 
die Dominico cum eaballis et bubus et vehiculis itinera non debere, neque 
ullam rem ad victum preeparare, vel ad nitorem domus vel hominis pertinentem 
ullatenus exercere; (que res quia ad Judaicam magis quam ad observantiam 
Christianam pertinere probatur) id statuimus, ut die Dominico, quod ante fieri 


26 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


‘* For whereas some people were persuaded, that it was unlaw- 
ful to travel on the Lord’s-day, either with horses, or oxen, 
or chariots, or to dress any victuals, or to do any thing per- 
taining to cleanliness of house or man; which came nearer 
the Jewish than the Christian observation; they therefore 
decreed, that all things might lawfully be done that were used 
to be done before. But, however, men ought to abstain from 
all country work, as husbandry, dressing of vineyards, reaping, 
and mowing, and threshing, that they may have more liberty 
to come to church, and offer up their prayers to God.” So 
likewise the Council of Auxerre": “It is not lawful, on the 
Lord’s-day, to yoke oxen, or do any works of the like nature.” 
And the second Council of Mascon*®: “Let no one on this 
day prosecute a lawsuit, no lawyer plead any causes, no one 
put himself under the necessity of yoking his oxen. But be 
ye all intent and ready, both in body and mind, to sing hymns 
and praises to God. If any one contemn this admonition, he 
shall be punished according to the quality of his offence. If 
he be a lawyer, he shall lose his privilege of pleading; if he 
be a countryman or slave, he shall be severely beaten with 
rods ; if a clergyman or monk, he shall be six months sus- 
pended from the communion of his brethren.” There are a 
great many other French and Spanish councils to the time of 
Charles the Great?, that have canons prohibiting the same 


licuit, liceat. De opere tamen rurali, id est, [arato] agricultura, vel vinea, 
vel sectione, vel messione, vel exeussione, vel exsecta sepe [exarto, vel sepe, ] 
censuimus abstinendum ; quo facilius ad ecclesiam yenientes, orationis gratize 
vacent. 

» Cone. Antissicdor, 6. xvi. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 959.) Non licet die Dominico 
boves jungere, vel alia opera exercere, 

© Cone. Matiscon. 11. e. i. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 980.) Nullus vestrum litium 
fomitibus vacet: nullus causarum actiones exerceat: nemo sibi talem necessita- 
tem exhibeat, que jugum cervicibus juvencorum imponere cogat. Estote 
omnes in hymnis et landibus Dei animo corporeque intenti. ... Si quis vestrum 
hane salubrem exhortationem parvi penderit, aut contemtui tradiderit, sciat se 
pro qualitatis merito principaliter a Deo puniri, et deinceps sacerdotali quoque 
ire implacabiliter subjacere. Si causidicus fuerit, irreparabiliter causam 
amittet: si rusticus aut servus, gravioribus fustium ictibus verberabitur: si 
elericus aut monachus, mensibus sex a consortio suspendetur fratrum. 

P Precept. Guntramni Regis ad Epise. et Judices Regni sui, ad caleem Cone. 
Matiscon. 11. (Labbe, vol. y. Cone. p. 991, and p. 992, B.) Ideirco hujus 


4) 


(παρ. II. 8 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 27 


thing: which show, that the liberty indulged by Constantine, 
of working at husbandry on the Lord’s-day, was never well ap- 
proved by the Church: but it was no easy matter to restrain 
men from the use of that first liberty which the law had 
granted them; and therefore they continued to enjoy the 
indulgence, which had so plausible a pretence. And, in many 
places, the evil increased; for some kept courts, and pleaded 
causes, and kept fairs and markets, and traded on this day as 
well as any other, as appears from the several complaints 
made against these things in the time of Charles the Great, 
who endeavoured, among other things, to correct these abuses 
in his reformation. 

But the Church did not only oppose the profaners of the 
Lord’s-day, but all such as with a pharisaical superstition, on 
the other hand, pretended to carry the observation of it to 
an unreasonable rigour and strictness, in abstaining from all 
bodily labour. The Dositheans, among the Jews, are noted 
by Origen‘ as putting a ridiculous sense upon the law of 


deereti ac definitionis generalis vigore decernimus, ut in omnibus diebus Domi- 
nicis, in quibus sanctee resurrectionis mysterium veneramur, vel in quibuseum~ 
que reliquis sollemnitatibus, quando ex more ad veneranda templorum oracula 
universe plebis conjunctio devotionis congregatur studio, preeter victum quem 
preeparari convenit, ab omni corporali opere suspendantur, nec ulla causarum 
preecipue jurgia moveantur. Cone. Arelat. VI. ec. xvi. (Labbe, vol. vii. 
p. 1237.) Ne in diebus Dominicis publica mereata, neque causationes discepta- 





tionesque exerceantur, et penitus a rurali et servili opere cessetur : his solum- 
Cone. 
Mogunt. sub Carolo M. ec. xxxvii. Omnes dies Dominicos cum omni veneratione 





modo peractis, quee ad Dei cultum et servitium pertinere noscuntur. 


decrevimus observari et a servili opere abstinere: et ut mereatus in eis minime 
sit, nee placitum, ubi aliquis ad mortem vel poenam judicetur. Cone. 
Turon. III. sub eodem, ec. xl. (Labbe, vol. vii. p. 1267.) Interdicatur, ne 
merecata et placita usquam fiant die Dominica, qua oportet omnes Christianos a 





servili opere in laude Dei et gratiarum actione usque ad vesperam perseverare. 
Cone. Remens. 11. 6. xxxv. (Labbe, vol. vii. p. 1257.) Ut diebus Dominicis, 
secundum Domini preceptum, nulla opera servilia quilibet perficiat, nee ad 
placita conveniat, nec etiam donationes in publico facere preesumat, neque mer- 
cata exerceat.—Tolet. XI. ὁ. viii. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 550.) and Cabil. 11. 6. xviii. 
(Labbe, vol. vii. p. 1276.) [These references are not connected with the ob- 
servance of the Sabbath. ] 

4 Origen. περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. iv. (Bened. Paris. 1733. vol. i. p. 176.) Alii, ex 
quibus Dositheus Samaritanus ... ridiculosius aliquid statuunt, quia unus- 
quisque quo habitu, quo loco, qua positione in die Sabbati fuerit inventus, ita 


28 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Moses, which said, “‘ Abide ye every man in his place: let no 
man go out of his place on the seventh day.” This they inter- 
preted so literally and rigorously, as that whatever habit, place, 
or posture, a man was found in on the Sabbath day, he was to 
continue in it till the evening ; that is, if he was found sitting, 
he must sit still all the day; or, if lying down, he must lie all 
the day. The Jewish rabbins were as ridiculous in their con- 
futation of this dream of Dositheus; for they pretended to 
say, out of some fabulous and frivolous traditions, that every 
man’s place was the space of two thousand cubits round him; 
and, therefore, he that travelled no further, was not reputed to 
move out of his placet. They were no less ridiculous in inter- 
preting those other laws against working and bearing burdens 
on the Sabbath day. They said’, “If a man had nails in his 
shoes, it was reputed a burden ; but, if he had no nails, it was 
no burden. If he carried any thing upon one shoulder, it was 
a burden; but, if upon both shoulders, it was none.” And 
some of them were so superstitious, as if their lives lay at 
stake, they would not move a finger to help themselves, for 
fear they should be thought to break the Sabbath by working. 
Synesius gives a famous instance of this in a certain Jewish 
pilot, who was steering a ship in a violent tempest: he 


usque ad vesperam debeat permanere, ete. This is repeated in Origen’s Phi- 
localia, c. i. (Cantab. 1766. p. 14.) Οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς . . . φλυαροῦσιν εὑρεσιλο- 
γοῦντες, ψυχρὰς παραδόσεις φέροντες, ὥσπερ Kai περὶ τοῦ σαββάτου, φάσ- 
κοντες τόπον ἑκάστῳ εἶναι δυσχιλίους πήχεις" ἄλλοι δὲ, ὧν ἐστι Δοσίθεος ὁ 
Σαμαρεὺς, καταγινώσκοντες τῆς τοιαύτης διηγήσεως, οἴονται ἐπὶ τοῦ σχή- 
ματος, οὗ ἂν καταληφθῇ τις ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου, μένειν μέχρις 
ἑσπέρας" ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ μὴ αἴρειν βάσταγμα ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου, 
ἀμήχανον" διόπερ εἰς ἀπεραντολογίαν οἱ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων διδάσκαλοι ἐληλύθασι 
λέγοντες, βάσταγμα μὲν εἶναι τὸ τοιόνδε ὑπόδημα, οὐ μὴν καὶ τὸ τοιόνδε, 
καὶ τὸ ἥλους ἔχον σανδάλιον, οὐ μὴν καὶ τὸ ἀνήλωτον" καὶ τὸ τωσὶ ἐπὶ 
τοῦ ὥμου φορούμενον, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν δύο ὦμων. 

* Ibid. Fabulas autem inanes et frivolas commentantur, ex nescio quibus 
traditionibus proferentes de Sabbato, dicentes, ‘ Unicuique locum suum reputari 
intra duo millia ulnarum.’ 

5 Origen. περὶ ἀρχῶν, lib. iv. p. 179. Ad fabulas devoluti Judseorum doctores 
dicentes, ‘ Non reputari onus,’ ete. 

* Synes. Epist. iv. ad Euoptium. (Paris. 1640. p. 161, D.) Ἡμέρα μὲν οὖν 
ἦν, ἥν τινα ἄγουσιν ot Ιουδαῖοι παρασκευήν τὴν δὲ νύκτα τῇ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν 
ἡμέρᾳ λογίζονται, καθ᾽ ἣν οὐδενὶ θέμις ἐστὶν ἐνεργὸν ἔχειν τὴν χεῖρα, ἀλλὰ 


Cxap: 11. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 99 


laboured hard till the Sabbath came on, but then he let go the 
helm, and left the ship to the mercy of the winds and sea: 
and though a soldier threatened him with present death, 
unless he would resume his labour, yet he refused ; and, like a 
true Maccabee, was ready to sacrifice his life to his supersti- 
tion. But afterwards, upon second thoughts, about midnight, 
he betook himself to his post, saying, Now the law allows it, 
because we run the hazard of our lives. Synesius elegantly 
ealls him a Maccabee for his first resolution, because a thou- 
sand of the Maccabees suffered themselves to be cut in pieces 
by their enemies, rather than they would take the sword in 
hand to fight, or do any thing to defend themselves, on the 
Sabbath day; which made Mattathias and his friends decree, 
that whoever should come to make battle with them on the 
Sabbath day, they would fight against him, and not die all, 
as their brethren that were murdered in the secret places 
(1 Mae. ii. 41). And the Jewish pilot wisely bethought him- 
self in time of this example, and so saved the ship at last by 
working on the Sabbath. Josephus says", “This decree of 
Mattathias was observed by the Jews in part: for if they 
were in present danger of their lives, they would fight on the 
Sabbath; but, if the enemy only made preparation for an 
assault the next day, and did not actually assault them on the 


τιμῶντες διαφερόντως αὐτὴν, ἄγουσιν ἀπραξίαν" μεθῆκεν οὖν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν 
« 2 a , ? ‘ A oe m” ᾽ , i 
ὁ κυβερνήτης τὸ πηδάλιον, ἐπειδὰν τὸν ἥλιον εἴκασεν ἀπολελοιπέναι τὴν 
γῆν" καὶ καταβαλὼν ἑαυτὸν 
Πατεῖν παρεῖχε τῷ θέλοντι ναυτίλων. 

Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν μὲν οὖσαν αἰτίαν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐπὶ νοῦν ἐβαλλόμεθα: ἀπόγνωσιν 
δὲ τὸ πρᾶγμα οἰόμενοι, προσῴειμεν, ἐλιπαροῦμεν μὴ καταπροέσθαι μηδέπω 
τὰς ἐσχάτας ἐλπίδας" καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἐπεῖχον αἱ τρικυμίαι, τοῦ πελάγους 


καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ στασιάσαντος. . .. Ἐπεὶ δ᾽ οὖν συνήκαμεν τὸν νοῦν τῆς 
ἀπολείψεως τῶν πηδαλίων"... πειθοῦς ἀπογνόντες, ἀνάγκην ἤδη προσ- 
ἤγομεν. Καί τις στρατιώτης γεννάδας . .. τὸ ξίφος σπασάμενος, ἠπείλησε 


τ᾽ ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποκόψειν, εἰ μὴ ἀντιλήψοιτο τοῦ σκάφους" ὁ δὲ 
αὐτόχρημα Μακκαβαῖος οἷος ἣν ἐγκαρτερῆσαι τῷ δόγματι: μεσούσης δὲ ἤδη 
τῆς νυκτὸς, παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἀναπείθεται πρὸς τῇ καθέδρᾳ γενέσθαι: νῦν γάρ, 
φησιν, ὁ νόμος ἐφίησιν, ἐπειδὰν νῦν σαφῶς τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς θέομεν. 

u Joseph. Antiquit. lib. xiv. ¢. viii. (Hudson. vol.i. p. 614, 5.) Ei μὴ πάτριον 
ἦν ἡμῖν ἀργεῖν τὰς ἑβδομάδας ἡμέρας, οὐκ ἂν ἠνύσθη τὸ χῶμα, κωλυόν- 
των ἐκείνων. ἄρχοντας γὰρ μάχης καὶ τύπτοντας ἀμύνασθαι δίδωσιν ὁ 
νόμος, ἄλλο δέ τι δρῶντας τοὺς πολεμίους οὐκ ἐᾷ, κ. τ. A. 


30 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Sabbath, they would do nothing to oppose them on that day.” 
And this gave occasion to Pompey first, and to Titus after- 
ward, to overcome them. 'The Essenes were yet more rigor- 
ous: for they would not kindle a fire, nor move a vessel out of 
its place, on the Sabbath day. And the Dositheans exceeded 
all the rest, as we have heard before, in superstitious madness. 
The Christians, therefore, in opposition to these furies, were 
careful to observe a just medium in the celebration of the 
Lord’s-day, neither to indulge themselves the liberty of unne- 
cessary works on this day, nor wholly to abstain from work- 
ing, if a great occasion required it. The Council of Laodicea 
thus determines the matter’, in settling the observation both 
of the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day, between which they put 
this difference: that Christians should not Judaize, or rest 
from bodily labour on the Sabbath, but work on that day (that 
is, so far as Divine service would permit) ; but they were to 
give preference in this respect to the Lord’s-day; and to 
rest, if possible, and abstain from working. But if any were 
found to Judaize, they were to be anathematized as great 
transgressors. Balsamon”® and Zonaras*, upon this canon, 
very well observe, ‘‘ That the words εἴγε δύναιντο, ‘if possible,’ 
suppose some special cases that may dispense with men’s 
working on the Lord’s-day, as extreme poverty and want; to 
which may be added all other cases of necessity, as fighting to 
preserve men’s lives against an enemy, toiling at the helm and 
oar to escape the violence of a tempest, travelling to church for 
the service of God, dressing of food for the life of man, labour- 
ing to deliver a man or beast in manifest danger of death, and 


Vv Cone. Laodic, ec. xxix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1501.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς 
ἸΙουδαΐζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ σχολάζειν, ἀλλὰ ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ 
αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ: τὴν δὲ κυριακὴν προτιμῶντας, εἴγε δύναιντο, σχολάζειν ὡς 
Χριστιανοί. Εἰ δὲ εὑρεθεῖεν ᾿Ιουδαϊσταὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀνάθεμα παρὰ Χριστῷ. 

w Balsam. in loc. (Bevereg. Pandect. vol. i. p. 466, A 4.) Προσέθεντο, εἴγε 
δύναιντο ot πιστοί: εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἀπορίας, ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς ἀνάγκης, Kai κατὰ 
τὴν κυριώνυμον ἐργάσεταί τις, οὐ προκριματισθήσεται. 

x Zonar. in loc. (p. 406, B 8.) Ὃ μὲν κανὼν, εἰ δύναιντο, προσέθετο" ὁ δὲ 
τῆς πολιτείας νόμος ἀπαραίτητον τὴν ἀργίαν ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἀπαιτεῖ, ἄνευ 
τῶν γεωργῶν" ἐκείνοις γὰρ ἐν κυριακῇ ἐργάζεσθαι ἐφίησιν, ὅτι ἴσως τῶν 
ἔργων κατεπειγόντων, οὐχ εὑρήσουσιν ἄλλην ἡμέραν οὕτως αὐτοῖς εἰς τὰ 
ἔργα αὐτῶν συμβαλλομένην. 


Cuap. II. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 31 


any the like cases; which are all so reasonable, that the 
greatest adversaries of our Saviour, when he proposed some 
such cases, could not but own the justness of his proceedings. 
And from his example the Christian Church took her mea- 
sures, in stating the exceptions that were proper to be made 
to the law about working on the Lord’s-day, in contradistinc- 
tion to the perverse way of observing the Jewish Sabbath. 


Secr. 1V.—No public Games, or Shows, or ludicrous 
Recreations, allowed on this Day. 


Another thing, which the Christian laws took care of, to 
secure the honour and dignity of the Lord’s-day, was, that 
no ludicrous sports, or games, or recreations, however allow- 
able at other times, should be followed or frequented on this 
day. ‘ There are two famous laws of Theodosius Senior, and 
his grandson, Theodosius Junior, to this purpose in the 
Theodosian Code. The first peremptorily forbids any one, 
who, either by his office or otherwise, had any concern in ex- 
hibiting the public games to the people, to gratify them with 
any thing of this kind on the Lord’s-day’, whether it were a 
gymnastical exercise of gladiators in the theatre, or a stage- 
play, or a horse-race in the circus, or a hunting and fighting of 
wild beasts, lest the worship of God should be disturbed and 
confounded with any such entertainments as these. And the 
other extends the prohibition of these pleasures’, as well to 


y Cod. Theod. lib. xv. de Spectaculis, tit. v. leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. v. 
p- 350.) Nullus omnino judicum aut theatralibus ludis, aut circensium certami- 
nibus, aut ferarum cursibus vacet, nisi illis tantum diebus, quibus vel in lucem 
editi, vel imperii sumus sceptra sortiti. ... Nullus solis die populo spectaculum 
preebeat, nee Divinam venerationem confecta solemnitate confundat. 

5 Cod. Theod. leg. v. p. 353. Dominico, qui septimanze totius primus est dies, 
et Natale atque Epiphaniorum Christi, Paschee etiam et Quinquagesimee diebus 

. .omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate, per universas urbes earumdem 
populis denegata, tote Christianorum ae fidelium mentes Dei cultibus occupan- 
tur. Si qui etiam nune vel Judzi impictatis amentia, vel stolidze paganitatis 
errore atque insania detinentur, aliud esse supplicationum noverint tempus, 
aliud voluptatum. Ac ne quis existimet, in honorem numinis nostri, veluti 
majore quadam imperialis officii necessitate compelli. . .. Nemo ambigat, quod 
tune maxime Mansuetudini nostree ab humano genere defertur, quum virtutibus 
Dei omnipotentis ac meritis universi obsequium orbis impenditur. 


32 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


the festival of Christ’s Nativity, and Epiphany, and Easter, 
and Pentecost, as to the Lord’s-day ; and equally enjoins both 
Jews and Gentiles over all the world so far to show a respect 
to these days, as to know how to make a distinction between 
times of supplication and times of pleasure. Nor should it be 
any excuse for any one to plead, he exhibited such diversions 
to the people in honour of the emperor’s birthday, which might 
happen to fall in with some of these seasons: for they were 
given to understand, that no greater honour could be paid to 
his imperial majesty on earth, than to have a just respect and 
veneration shown to the majesty of Almighty God in heaven. 
A like order was made by Leo and Anthemius, that no stage- 
play, nor games of the circus, nor hunting of wild beasts, 
should be performed on this day*. And if it so happened that 
any of the emperors’ birthdays fell upon the Lord’s-day, the 
observation of their birthday should be put off to another day. 
And whoever transgressed this order, either by exhibiting 
these games, or by being present at them as a spectator only, 
if he were a military man, he should forfeit his office; if a 
private man, be liable to confiscation of all his goods. And 
the same penalty is imposed on all judges, advocates, and 
apparitors, that pretended to prosecute any business of the 
law upon this day. The Church was no less careful to guard 
the service of this day from the encroachment of all vain 
pastimes and needless recreations. The Jews, though they 
would not work on their Sabbath, yet made no scruple to 
spend it in idleness, or worse exercises than any innocent 
bodily labour, as dancing, and revelling, and other unlawful 
pleasures ; against which the ancients often inveigh, and en- 
deavour to dissuade their people from following so bad an 
example. ‘ The Jews in our time,” says St. Austin”, “ cele- 


ἃ Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. xi. (Amstel. 1663. p. 90.) Nihil 
eodem die vindicet sibi scena theatralis, aut circense certamen, aut ferarum 
lacrimosa spectacula: et si in nostrum ortum aut natalem celebranda solemnitas 
inciderit, differatur. Amissionem militize, proscriptionemque patrimonii sus- 
tinebit, si quis umquam hoe die festo spectaculis interesse, vel cujuscumque 
judicis apparitor preetextu negotii publici, seu privati, heec, quee hae lege statuta 
sunt, crediderit temeranda. 

b Aug. in Psalm. xci. (Bened. Antverp. 1700. vol. iv. p. 737, E.) Sabbatum, 
in preesenti tempore, otio quodam corporaliter languido et ἢιΐχο et luxurioso 


Cuar. 11. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 3 


brate their Sabbath in a sort of rest, which is nothing but a 
corporeal laziness, languid, vain, and luxurious. For they rest 
only for trifling vanities; and when God commands them to 
observe the Sabbath, they exercise the Sabbath in those things 
which God forbids. Our rest is from evil works, their rest is 
from good works; for it is better to go to ploughing, than, as 
they do, to dancing. They rest from good works, but rest not 
from works of vanity and trifling.” So, in another place°; 
“A Jew would do better to work in his field at some useful 
labour, than spend his time at the theatre in a seditious man- 
ner: and their women had much better spin on the Sabbath, 
than spend the whole day on their new-moons in immodest 
dancing; therefore God commands thee to observe the Sab- 
bath spiritually ; not as the Jews do, in carnal rest, to satisfy 
their vanity and luxury.” Prudentius brings the same charge 
against the Jews*, objecting to them their misemploying the 
Sabbath in lascivious dancing. And Ruffin’, on those words 
of Hosea (ii. 11), “1 will cause all her mirth to cease, her 
feast-days, her new-moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her 
solemn feasts,” says, ‘‘These were the feasts, in which the 
whole nation spent their time in dancing, singing, and las- 
civious banquetings.” St. Chrysostom also objects it to them Ὁ 


celebrant Judeei: vacant enim ad nugas: et quum Deus preeceperit [observari] 
Sabbatum, illi in his, quae Deus prohibet, exercent Sabbatum. Vacatio nostra a 
malis operibus; vacatio illorum a bonis operibus est. Melius est enim arare 
quam saltare. Illi a bono opere vacant; ab opere nugatorio non vacant. 
© Ibid. de Decem Chordis, ὁ. iii. (Bened. 1679. vol. v. p. 50, C.) Dicitur tibi, 
ut spiritaliter observes Sabbatum ; non quomodo Judzei observant carnali otio: 
yacare enim volunt ad nugas atque luxurias suas. Melius enim faceret Judzeus 
in agro suo aliquid utile, quam in theatro seditiosus existeret: et melius feminze 
eorum die Sabbati lanam facerent, quam toto die in menianis suis impudice 
saltarent. 
ἃ Prudent. Apotheos. Poem. iii. 350. (Bibl. V. P. Galland. p. 473.) 
... Stultum est sic credere sacrum, 
Sanguine balantis summos contingere postes, 
Lascivire choris, ete. 
e Ruffin. in Hos. ii. 11. Posuit nomina feriarum in quibus plurimum leta- 
bantur, quum tota regio choreis, canticis, epulisque lasciviret. 
f Chrysostom. Hom. i. de Lazaro. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 717, A 9.) Ov 
Ἰουδαῖοι τῶν βιωτικῶν ἀπαλλαγέντες πραγμάτων, τοῖς πνευματικοῖς οὐ 


VOL. VII. D 


8A THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


“‘ That when they were delivered from secular cares, they had 
no regard to spiritual things, sobriety, modesty, and hearing 
the word of God; but did all things contrary, serving their 
belly, indulging drunkenness, stuffing themselves with meat 
and delicacies, and spending their time in banquetings and 
pleasures.” This was their way of keeping the Sabbaths, 
which St. Chrysostom, following the Septuagint (Amos vi. 3), 
ealls σάββατα ψευδῆ, ‘false sabbaths,’ when they lay upon 
beds of ivory, and stretched themselves upon their couches, 
and ate the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the 
midst of the stall; chanting to the sound of the viol, and 
inventing to themselves instruments of music, like David; 
drinking wine in bowls, and anointing themselves with the 
chief ointment, but were not grieved for the affliction of 
Joseph.” Which agrees with the character which another 
prophet gives of them: “The harp and the viol, the tabret 
and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not 
the work of the Lord, nor consider the operation of his hands” 
(Isaiah v. 12). Theodoret, in like manner, reflects upon their 
abuse of the sabbatical rest in lascivious dancing’. And, 
again, on the effeminacy and luxury" wherein they indulged 
themselves on this day. Upon which account both hei and 
Cyril of Alexandria; apply to them the forementioned words 
of Amos, and charge them with keeping false Sabbaths. Their 
luxury and banqueting on this day was become so extravagant 


προσεῖχον, σωφροσύνῃ, Kai ἐπιεικείᾳ, Kai ἀκροάσει θείων λογίων" ἀλλὰ τοὐ- 
ναντίον ἐποίουν, γαστριζόμενοι, μεθύοντες, διαῤῥηγνύμενοι, τρυφῶντες. 

& Theodoret. Queest. xxxii. in Levit. (Hal. 1771. vol. i. p. 210.) Οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι 
kar’ αὐτὴν τὴν ἡμέραν ob σκυθρωπάζουσιν, ἀλλὰ γελῶσι, Kai παίζουσι, Kai 
χορεύουσι, καὶ ἀκολάστοις ῥήμασι καὶ πράγμασι κέχρηνται, ἄντικρυς τῷ 
νόμῳ μαχόμενοι. 

® Ibid. in Phil. iii. 19. (ibid. vol. iii. p. 465.) Διαφερόντως οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι πολ- 
λὴν ποιοῦνται τροφῆς ἐπιμέλειαν, καὶ δικαιοσύνης ὅρον νομίζουσι τὴν ἐν 
σαββάτῳ χλιδήν' δόξαν ταῦτα ὑπολαμβάνοντες, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔδει αἰσχύνεσθαι. 

1 Thid. in Amos, vi. 3. (Aubert, 1638. vol. iii. p. 314, E 6.) Οἱ ἐγγίζοντες καὶ 
ἐφαπτόμενοι σαββάτων ψευδῶν] οἱ τῷ δοκεῖν τιμῶντες τὰ σάββατα, μυρία 
δὲ αὐτοῖς παράνομα δρῶντες, κ. τ. Xr. 

j Cyril. Alex. in Amos, vi. 3. (Aubert, Paris. 1638. vol. iii. Ρ. 314, E 6.) 
᾿Εφαπτόμενοι σαββάτων ψευδῶν) ἐπετρίβουν τὰς ἐν σαββάτοις ἀργίας» 
πλὴν οὐκ εἰσάπαν ἠκριβωμένως, ἀτημελῶς δὲ πάμπαν καὶ ῥᾳθύμως κομιδῇ. 


β 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 4, CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 35 


and infamous, that it was noted even to a proverb. Cote- 
lerius* thinks the phrase, ‘ luxus Sabbatarius,’ in Sidonius 
Apollinaris!, has reference to this; though Savaro™ interprets 
it as spoken of Theodoric, and his Arian Goths, keeping 
Saturday as a feast, in opposition to the Roman Church, who 
made it a weekly fast, as we shall see more in the next chap- 
ter. The heathens, indeed, had a quite contrary notion of the 
Jews; for they thought they fasted on their Sabbath, which 
was a vulgar mistake in them, arising merely from a misap- 
prehension of their laws and practice: for because they kin- 
dled no fires, nor dressed any meat, on the Sabbath, they 
wrongfully concluded that they spent the day in fasting. 
Whereas the Christian writers, who better understood their 
practice, charge them every where with making it a day of 
rioting, and drunkenness, and excess of unlawful pleasures ; 
and, as such, they earnestly caution those of their own reli- 
gion against imitating the Jews in such perverse and abomina- 
ble corruptions of the law, by turning a day of spiritual rest 
into a day of carnal pleasure. 

But beside the example of the Jews, Christians were under 
another temptation from the practice of the Gentiles. There- 
fore the fourth Council of Carthage made a decree", “ That if 
any one forsook the solemn assembly of the Church on the 
Lord’s-day to go to a public show, he should be excommuni- 


k Coteler. in Pseudo-Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. sect. ix. vol. ii. p. 59. not. Ix. 
Certe in proverbium abiit ‘sabbatarius luxus’ Apollinari Sidonio, lib. i. ep. ii. 

1 Sidon. lib. i. ep. ii. (Biblioth. V. P. Galland. vol. x. p. 465, A.) De luxu 
autem illo sabbatario narrationi mez supersedendum est. 

m Savaro in loc. (Paris. 1609. p. 16.) Quid sit ‘ sabbatarius luxus,’ liquido 
non liquet; si locus conjecture, sabbatarius luxus est, ita dictus, quod Gothi 
Arriani Sabbato genio indulgerent, et opipare convivarentur, (quo die Catholici 
et Romani jejunabant,) more Arrianorum Aérianorumque, qui diebus, quibus 
Christiani abstinebant, odio fidei Catholicze epulabantur. ... Atque ita quum in 
universo orbe Romano die Sabbati jejunium celebraretur, et Arriani studia in 
contrarium destinarent, hac die helluabantur, diemque Saturni otio et victui 
decernebant, more Sabbatariorum, idcirco dixit Sidonius ‘ sabbatarium luxum.’ 
Die autem Solis, quum leetitize Christiani indulgerent, et jejunare nefas duce- 
rent, illi abstinebant. 

n Cone. Carth. IV. 6. Ixxxviii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1206.) Qui die sollemni, 
preetermisso sollemni ecclesize conventu, ad spectacula vadit, excommunicetur. 


Diez 


36 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


cated.” St. Chrysostom threatens the same punishment °, 
copiously declaiming against the public games as the conyen- 
tions of Satan. The African fathers, in one of their general 
synods?, petitioned the Emperor Honorius, that the spectacles 
both of the theatre, and other games, might be wholly omitted 
on the Lord’s-day, and all other noted festivals of the Christian 
religion, because they had found, by sad experience, that even 
upon the Sunday, called the octaves of Easter, the people met 
more at the horse-races in the circus than at church: and 
therefore they thought, if any such days as were devoted to 
these pleasures, as the emperors’ birthdays, or the like, hap- 
pened to fall upon a Sunday, it ought to be transferred to 
some other day; and no heathen should have power to compel 
a Christian to be a spectator of them upon any occasion. For 
by the ecclesiastical law these sorts of diversions were univer- 
sally forbidden to all Christians’, for the extravagances and 
blasphemies that were committed in them. What care was 
taken by Honorius to satisfy these demands, and remedy the 
abuses here complained of, appears not from any law of his in 
either of the Codes, but rather that he refused to comply with 


© Chrysostom. Hom. vi. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 42, Ο 5.) Ὅπως 
μὴ πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς περιπέσητε, μηδὲ, μετὰ τὴν τοσαύτην ἡμῶν παραί- 
νεσιν, πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ Σατανικὰ συνέδρια ἐκεῖνα δράμητε, ἀναγκαῖον διαμαρ- 
τύρεσθαι: οὐδὲ γὰρ πάντοτε καλὸν προσηνῆ φάρμακα ἐπιτιθέναι, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν 
ἢ! τὸ ἕλκος δυσένδοτον, δεῖ καὶ τὰ στύφοντα καὶ τὰ δάκνειν δυνάμενα προσ- 
ἄγειν, ἵνα ταχεῖα γένηται ἡ διόρθωσις. μαθέτωσαν τοίνυν ἕπαντες, οἱ τοῖς 
ἐγκλήμασιν ὑπεύθυνοι, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μετὰ ταύτην ἡμῶν τὴν παραίνεσιν πάλιν 
τῇ αὐτῇ ῥᾳθυμίᾳ ἐπιμένωσιν, οὐκ ἀνεξόμεθα, ἀλλὰ τοῖς νόμοις τῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας χρησάμενοι μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτοὺς τῆς σφοδρότητος διδάξομεν, μὴ τοιαῦτα 
πλημμελεῖν, K. τ. δ. 

P Cod. Can, Afric. ¢. Ixi, (Labbe, yol. ii. p. 1086.) Κἀκεῖνο ἔτι μὴν δεῖ 
αἰτῆσαι, ἵνα τὰ θεώρια τῶν θεατρικῶν παιγνίων ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ καὶ ἐν ταῖς 
λοιπαῖς φαιδραῖς τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν πίστεως κωλύωνται: μάλιστα, re ἐν 
τῇ ὀγδοάδι τοῦ ἁγίου πάσχα οἱ ὄχλοι μᾶλλον εἰς τὸ ἱπποδρόμιον ἤπερ εἰς 
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν συνέρχονται ὀφείλειν μετενεχθῆναι τὰς ὡρισμένας αὐτῶν 
ἡμέρας, bre ἀπαντήσῃ, καὶ μὴ ὀφείλειν τινὰ τῶν Χριστιανῶν πρὸς τὰ θεώρια 
ταῦτα ἀναγκάζεσθαι. 

4 Concil. Carth. III. ¢. xi. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1169.) Ut filii episeoporum 
vel clericorum spectacula seecularia non exhibeant, sed nee spectent, quando- 
quidem a spectaculo et omnes laici prohibeantur. Semper enim Christianis 
omnibus hoe interdictum est, ut ubi blasphemi sunt, non aecedant. 


Cnap. 11. § 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 37 


their request to prohibit the games and shows upon any. other 
festivals beside the Lord’s-day, which had been prohibited 
before. For by one of his lawst (an. 399), he granted license 
to the people to solemnize and frequent their usual games and 
diversions on any public days of rejoicing, only forbidding 
sacrifice and other superstitious rites of the heathen. But 
not long after Theodosius Junior published that famous law, 
called Dominico’, wherein he not only restrained the people 
from celebrating their games on the Lord’s-day, but on all 
other solemn festivals, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, and Pen- 
tecost; and obliged both Jews and Gentiles, over all the 
world, to show a respect to these days, by putting a distinc- 
tion between days of supplication and days of pleasure. And 
this became the standing law of the Roman empire. 


Sect. V.—All Fasting prohibited on this Day, even in the 
Time of Lent. 


But we are here to note, that such recreations and relax- 
ations, or refreshments, as contributed only to the preservation 
or convenience of the life of man, or had any tendency to pro- 
mote the performance of Divine worship with greater decency 
or perfection, were noways comprehended in this prohibition 
of recreations and diversions on the Lord’s-day. Therefore, 
though the ancient Church was very strict in observing her 
stated and solemn fasts, yet she never allowed any fast to be 
held on the Lord’s-day, no, not even in Lent, out of which the 
Sabbath and Lord’s-day were generally excepted, and made 
days of common recreation and refreshment. Tertullian says, 
in general‘, that they counted it a crime to fast on the Lord’s- 
day. And he remarks, in particular, concerning the Montan- 
ists", “That though they were more rigid than others in 


τ Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. x. de Paganis, leg. xvii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. vi. 
p. 284.) Ut profanos ritus jam salubri lege submovimus, ita festos conventus 
civium et communem omnium lzetitiam non patimur submoveri. Unde absque 
ulla superstione damnabili, exhibere populo voluptates, secundum veterem 
consuetudinem: inire etiam festa convivia, si quando exigunt publica vota, 
decernimus. 

S See before, note (y), p. 31. 

t Tertul. de Coron. Milit. e. iii. Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. 

u Thid. de Jejun. ¢. xv. (Paris. 1664. p. 532.) Quantula est enim apud nos 


38 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


observing their fasts, yet they omitted every Sabbath and 
Lord’s-day throughout the year.” St. Ambrose says*, “ They 
fasted not even in Lent, either on the Sabbath or the Lord’s- 
day ; but condemned the Manichees particularly for fasting on 
the Lord’s-day, as in effect denying the Lord’s resurrection’ :” 
which is also noted by St. Austin?; and Pope Leo ἃ condemns 
the Priscillianists for the same practice. The fourth Council 
of Carthage reckons him no Catholic” that fasts upon this day. 
The first Council of Braga particularly anathematizes the Cer- 
donians, Marcionites, Priscillianists, and Manichees, for their 
perverseness in this particular®. And there are more general 


interdictio ciborum ? duas in anno hebdomadas xerophagiarum, nec totas, ex- 
ceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis, offerimus Deo: abstinentes ab eis, quee 
non rejicimus, sed differimus. 

* Ambros. de Elia et Jejun. c. x. (Paris. 1836. vol. i. p. 364.) Quadragesima 
totis preeter Sabbatum et Dominicam jejunatur diebus. 

¥ Ibid. Epist. Ixxxiii. (Bened. Paris. 1686. vol. ii. p. 883, C 3.) Dominica 
jejunare non possumus, quia Manichos etiam ob istius diei jejunia damnamus. 
Hoe est enim in resurrectionem Christi non eredere, ete. 

% Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. tot. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p- 60, F.) Nune 
vero postea quam heeretici, maxime impiissimi Manicheei, jejunia diei Dominici 
non aliqua necessitate occurrente peragere, sed quasi sacra sollemnitate statuta 
dogmatizare cceperunt, et innotuerunt populis Christianis ; profecto nec tali 
necessitate, qualem Apostolus habuit, (Actor. xx.) existimo faciendum esse 
quod fecit: ne majus malum incurratur in scandalo, quam bonum percipiatur 
ex verbo, etc. 

* Leo, Epist. xciii. ad Turribium, ec. iv. (Labbe, vol. iii. p. 1412.) (Opp. 
Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 699.) Quarto capitulo continetur, quod natalem Christi, 
quem secundum susceptionem veri hominis Catholica ecclesia veneratur, quia 
‘Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis,’ non vere isti honorent, sed 
honorare se simulent, jejunantes eodem die, sicut et die Dominico, qui est dies 
resurrectionis Christi. Quod utique ideo faciunt, quia Christum Dominum in 
vera hominis natura natum esse non credunt, sed per quamdam illusionem 
ostentata videri volunt, quze vera non fuerint ; sequentes dogmata Cerdonis 
atque Marcionis, et cognatis suis Manichzeis per omnia consonantes. Qui sicut 
in nostro examine detecti atque convicti sunt, Dominicum diem, quem nobis 
Salvatoris nostri resurrectio conseeravit, exigunt in meerore jejunii; solis (ut 
proditum est) reverentize hane continentiam devoventes ; ut per omnia sint a 
nostree fidei unitate discordes ; et dies, quae a nobis in leetitia habetur, ab illis in 
adflictione ducatur. Unde dignum est, ut inimici crucis Christi et resurrec- 
tionis talem excipiant sententiam, qualem elegerunt doctrinam. 

Ὁ Cone. Carth. IV. ¢. Ixiv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1205.) Qui Dominico die stu- 
diose jejunat, non credatur Catholicus. 

© Cone. Bracar. I. ¢. iv. (ibid. vol. v. p. 837.) Si quis natalem Christi seeun- 
dum carnem non bene honorat, sed honorare se simulat, jejunans eodem die, ct 


Cuap. 11. § 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 39 


anathemas in the Apostolical Canons‘, and the Council of 
Gangra®, and the Council of Saragossa and Agde‘, and the 
Council of Trullo’, against all that, under any pretence what- 
ever, presumed to make the Lord’s-day a fasting day; which 
was not allowed to those who led an ascetic life, without sus- 
picion of some perverse and heterodox opinion. Whence 
Epiphanius observes", ‘‘ That the true ascetics of the Church 
never fasted on the Lord’s-day, no, not in Lent, because it was 
against the custom of the Catholic Church.” And the like 
observation is made by Cassian of all the monks in the East, 


in Dominico; quia Christum in vera hominis natura natum esse non credit, 
sicut Cerdon, Marcion, Manichzeus, et Priscillianus ; anathema sit. 

4 Can. Apost. 6. xv. (ibid. vol. i. p. 40.) Εἴ τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθῇ τὴν κυρια- 
κὴν ἡμέραν νηστεύων, ἢ τὸ σάββατον, πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς μόνου, καθαιρείσθω" 
εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω. 

€ Cone, Gangrens. 6. xviii. (ibid. vol. ii. p. 424.) Εἴ τις διὰ νομιζομένην 
ἄσκησιν ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ νηστεύοι, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

f Cone. Csaraugust. ὁ. ii. (ibid. vol. ii, p. 1009.) Ne quis jejunet die Do- 
minica, causa temporis, aut persuasionis, aut superstitionis. Cone. Agath. 
ce. xii. (ibid. vol. iv. p. 1385.) Placuit, ut omnes ecclesiz filii, exceptis diebus 
Dominicis, in quadragesima, etiam die Sabbato, sacerdotali ordinatione, et dis- 
trictionis comminatione jejunent. 

& Cone. Trull. 6. ly. (ibid. vol. vi. p. 1167.) ᾿Επειδὴ μεμαθήκαμεν ἐν τῇ 
Ῥωμαίων πόλει ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς νηστείαις τοῖς ταύτης 





σάββασι νηστεύειν, παρὰ τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἀκολουθίαν, 
ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ, ὥστε κρατεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ Ῥωωμαίων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀπαρα- 
σαλεύτως τὸν κανόνα τὸν λέγοντα, Bi τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθείη τῇ ἁγίᾳ κυριακῇ 
νηστεύων ἢ τὸ σάββατον, πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου, καθαιρείσθω" εἰ δὲ 
λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω. 

h Epiphan. Exposit. Fidei, sect. xxii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 1105, B.) 
TIpoapéce. ἀγαθῇ ot αὐτῆς ἀσκηταὶ διαπαντὸς, χωρὶς κυριακῆς καὶ ἹΤεντα- 
κοστῆς, νηστεύουσι, καὶ ἀγρυπνίας διαπαντὸς ἐπιτελοῦσι: τὰς δὲ κυριακὰς 
ἁπάσας τρυφερὰς ἡγεῖται ἡ ἁγία αὕτη καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, καὶ συνάξεις ad’ 
ἕωθεν ἐπιτελεῖ, οὐ νηστεύει: ἀνακόλουθον γάρ ἐστιν ἐν κυριακῇ νηστεύειν" 
τὴν δὲ τεσσαρακοστὴν τὴν πρὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγίου πάσχα ὡσαύτως 
φυλάττειν εἴωθεν ἡ αὐτὴ ἐκκλησία, ἐν νηστείαις διατελοῦσα: τὰς δὲ κυριακὰς 
οὐδ᾽ Owe, οὔτε ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ. Hieron. Ep. xxviii. (Vallars. 
fol. vol. i. p. 433.) Nee hoe dico, quod festis [Dominicis] diebus jejunandum 
putem, et contextas quinquaginta diebus ferias auferam, ete. 

1 Cassian. Institut. lib. iii. 6. ix. (Paris. 1669. p. 45.) (Atrebat. 1628. p. 62.) 
Ideoque et absolutio jejunii post vigiliarum laborem, totidem apostolicis viris in 
die Sabbati statuta, non immerito przesumitur per universas Orientis ecclesias 
secundum illam quoque Ecclesiastze sententiam, que licet habeat et alium 
mysticum sensum, tamen ab hoe quoque non abhorret; quo utrique diei, id est, 
hebdomadi pariter et ogdoadi, eamdem partem solemnitatis impartire precipi- 





40 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


“That they fasted five days in the week; but on the Heb- 
domas and Ogdoas, that is, ‘the seventh and eighth day’ (so 
he terms the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day), they always ab- 
stained from fasting, and kept them festival.” Nor would the 
Council of Gangra allow the Eustathians to fast on the Lord’s- 
day, as ascetics, under pain of anathema. 

The reason of this observation, the same Cassian tells us, 
‘Was the respect they had to our Saviour’s resurrection from 
the dead on this day, which they always commemorated with 
joyfulness, and therefore neither fasted on this day, nor the 
whole fifty days between Easter and Pentecost, which were all 
kept festival in memory of our Saviour’s resurrection.” The 
same is said by the author of the Constitutions!, “‘ Every Sab- 
bath except one” (viz. the great Sabbath before Easter), “and 
every Lord’s-day ye shall keep festival. For he is guilty of 
sin that fasts on the Lord’s-day, as being the day of his resur- 
rection ; or whoever makes Pentecost or the Lord’s-day a day 
of sorrow. For in these days we ought to rejoice, and not to 
mourn.” So again™: ‘“ Keep the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day 
festival; because the one is the commemoration of the ere- 
ation, and the other of the resurrection.” In like manner, 
Peter, bishop of Alexandria, ‘“‘ We keep the Lord’s-day as a 


mur, ita dicentis, Da partem his septem, et quidem his octo. Non enim ad 
communionem festivitatis Judaicce absolutio ista jejunii reputanda est, his pree- 
sertim qui ab omni Judaica superstitione alieni monstrantur, sed ad refectionem, 
quam diximus, lassi corporis pertinere ; quod per totas anni septimanas jugiter 
quinis diebus jejunans, nisi duobus saltem interpositis refocillatum fuerit, facile 
lassescit ac deficit. 

kK Cassian. Collat. xxi. ¢. xx. (Atrebat. 1628. p. 795.) Per omnia eamdem in 
illis [1. diebus] solemnitatem quam die Dominica custodimus, in qua majores 
nostri nec jejunium agendum, nec genu esse flectendum, ob reverentiam resur- 
rectionis Dominicze tradiderunt. 

! Constitut. lib. v. 6. xix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 371.) Πᾶν μέν τοι σάββατον 
ἄνευ τοῦ ἑνὸς, καὶ πᾶσαν κυριακὴν ἐπιτελοῦντες συνόδους, εὐφραίνεσθε" 
ἔνοχος γὰρ ἁμαρτίας ἔσται ὁ τὴν κυριακὴν νηστεύων, ἡμέραν ἀναστάσεως 
οὖσαν, ἢ τὴν ἹΠεντηκοστὴν, ἢ ὕλως ἡμέρας ἑορτῆς Κυρίου κατηφῶν. 
εὐφρανθῆναι γὰρ δεῖ ἐν αὐταῖς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πενθῆσαι. 

™ Constitut. lib. vii. c. xxiv. (Labbe, vol. i.) Τὸ σάββατον μέν τοι καὶ τὴν 
κυριακὴν ἑορτάζετε, Ore τὸ μὲν δημιουργίας ἐστὶν ὑπόμνημα, ἡ δὲ ἀναστά- 
σεως. 

n Pet. Alex.-c. xv. (ibid. vol. i. p. 967.) Κυριακὴν χαρμοσύνης ἡμέραν 
ἄγομεν διὰ τὸν ἀναστάντα ἐν αὐτῇ. 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 41 


day of joy, because of him who rose upon it.” And Cotelerius 
cites a fragment of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, to the 
same purpose°®: ‘Both custom and decency require us to 
keep the Lord’s-day a festival, and to give honour to it, 
because on this day our Lord Jesus Christ procured for us 
the resurrection from the dead.” Yet this rule was not so 
strictly binding, but that when a necessary occasion required, 
and there was no suspicion of heretical perverseness or con- 
tempt, men might fast upon this day: as St. Jerome observes 
that the apostle Paul sometimes did? ; and that famous monk, 
who, for the space of forty years, never ate till the sun was 
set ; and Celerinus, the confessor in Cyprian, speaking of his 
sister’s lapsing into idolatry in time of the persecution, says", 
“ For this fact I went day and night in the midst of the joyful 
festival of Easter, and spent many days sorrowing, in sack- 
cloth and ashes.” But such exceptions as these were no dero- 
gation to the general practice, which prevailed universally over 
the whole Church, and was observed with great exactness. 


Sect. VI.—<And all Prayers offered in the Standing Posture on 
the Lord’s-Day, in Memory of our Saviour’s Resurrection. 


Another custom, as generally prevailing, was always to pray 
standing, and never kneeling, on the Lord’s-day, in memory 
also of our Saviour’s resurrection. And we scarce meet with 
any exception to this, except it were in the case of penitents 
under public discipline τ, whom the canons oblige to pray kneel- 
ing, even upon days of relaxation. But setting aside this case, 


© Coteler. Not. in Constitut. lib. v. 6. xx. vol. i. p. 328. Kai τὸ ἔθος καὶ τὸ 
πρέπον ἡμᾶς ἀπαιτεῖ πᾶσαν κυριακὴν τιμᾷν, Kai ἐν ταύτῃ πανηγυρίζειν, 
ἐπειδήπερ ἐν ταύτῃ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνά- 
στασιν ἡμῖν ἐπρυτάνευσεν. 

Ρ Hieron, Epist. xxviii. ad Lucinium Beeticum. (Venet. vol. i. p. 494, E.) 
Utinam omni tempore jejunare possimus, quod in Actibus Apostolorum, diebus 
Pentecostes et die Dominico, apostolum Paulum, et cum eo credentes fecisse 
legimus. 

4 Celerin. Epist. xxi. apud Cyprian. (Oxon. 1682. p. 45.) Pro cujus factis 
ego in ltitia Paschee flens die et nocte, in cilicio et cinere lacrimabundus dies 
exegi. 

r Cone. Carth. IV. ¢. Ixxxii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1206.) Pcenitentes etiam die- 
bus remissionis genua flectant. 


42 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


which only respected the penitents in their own particular 
prayers, the general custom was for all the faithful or commu- 
nicants to pray standing. For which we have the concurrent 
testimony of Irenzeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Cyprian, the Council of Nice, Hilary, Basil, Epiphanius, St. 
Jerome, St. Austin, Cassian, the author of the Questions 
under the name of Justin Martyr, Martin Bracarensis, the 
Council of Trullo, and the Council of Tours in the time of 
Charles the Great. All which testimonies I have had ocea- 
sion to recite at large once before’, and therefore spare the 
repetition of them in this place; only observing from the two 
last of them, that this custom was not only general, but of long 
continuance in the Church; and when or how it came to be 
altered or laid aside, I think is not very easy to determine. 


Sect. VII.—The great Care and Concern of the Primitive 
Christians in the Religious Observation of the Lord’s-Day. 
This demonstrated, first, from their Constant Attendance upon 
all the Solemnities of Public Worship. 


The last thing to be noted in this matter, is the great care 
and concern of the Primitive Christians for the religious obser- 
vation of the Lord’s-day : of which they have left us several 
demonstrations : first, in that they paid a ready and constant 
attendance upon all the offices and solemnities of public Divine 
worship. They did not only rest from bodily labour and secu- 
lar business, but spent the day in such employments as were 
proper to set forth the glory of the Lord, to whose honour the 
day was devoted: that is, in holding religious assemblies for 
the celebration of the several parts of Divine service, psalmody, 
reading of the Scriptures, preaching, praying, and receiving 
the communion, all which were the constant service of this 
day: and such was the flaming zeal of those pious votaries, 
that nothing but sickness, or a great necessity, or imprison- 
ment, or banishment, could detain them from it; and then 
also care was taken that the chief part of it, the communion, 
was administered to them by the hands of the deacons, who 
carried it to those that were sick or in prison, that, as far as 


S Vol. iv. p. 324. book xiii. ch. viii. sect. iii. 


Cuar. II. § 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 43 


was possible, they might communicate still with the public 
congregation. This is plain from the account which Justin 
Martyr gives of their worship ', ‘“‘ On the day called Sunday, 
all that live in city or country meet together, and the writings 
of the apostles and prophets are read to them, after which, the 
bishop or president of the assembly makes a discourse to the 
people, exhorting them to follow the good things they have 
heard : then we all rise, and make common prayer; and when 
prayers are ended, bread, and wine, and water are brought to 
the president, who prays and gives thanks with all possible 
fervency over them, the people answering, ‘Amen.’ After 
which, distribution of the elements is made to all that are 
present, and they are sent to the absent by the hands of the 
deacons.” By this account, it appears that all Christians 
joined, as far as was possible, in the public service of the 
Lord’s-day, and particularly in receiving the communion, from 
which the absent were not exempt, if there was any possibility 
of their receiving it. 


Secr. VIII.—Secondly, From their Zeal in frequenting 
Religious Assemblies even in Times of Persecution. 


Neither was it any pretence of danger, in times of difficulty 
and persecution, that could abate their zeal for the public 
worship on the Lord’s-day. For when they could not meet by 
day to serve God, without hazard of their lives, they kept their 
nocturnal convocations, or morning-assemblis, for this purpose. 
Which is evident from the account which Pliny gives of them *, 


τ Justin. Apol. i. (Paris. 1742. p. 83, D.) Tg τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, 
καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφη- 
τῶν ἀναγινώσκεται μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ" εἶτα παυσαμένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, 
προεστὼς διὰ λόγου τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν καλῶν τούτων 
μιμήσεως ποιεῖται ἔπειτα ἀνιστάμεθα κοινῇ πάντες, καὶ εὐχὰς πέμπομεν᾽" 
καὶ παυσαμένων ἡμῶν τῆς εὐχῆς, ἄρτος προσφέρεται καὶ οἶνος καὶ ὕδωρ’ 
καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαριστίας, bon δύναμις αὐτῷ, ἀναπέμπει, 
καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων τὸ ᾿Αμήν" καὶ ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ 
τῶν εὐχαριστηθέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσι διὰ τῶν διακόνων 
πέμπεται. 

ἃ Plin. lib. ix. Ep. xevii. See chap. ii. sect. i, note (b), p. 14. 


44. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


“that they were used to meet before it was light on this 
solemn day, and sing their morning hymns to Christ.” So 
Tertullian ἡ, in answer to one asking how they should celebrate 
the Lord’s-day solemnities for fear of the soldiers coming in to 
discover them? replies, first, ‘that they should do it as the 
apostles did, by faith, and not by bribing them. For if faith 
could remove mountains, it would much more easily remove a 
soldier out of the way. But if they could not meet by day, 
they had the night sufficiently clear, with the light of Christ, 
to protect them.” ‘The same author tells the heathen who 
maliciously objected to them the murdering of an infant in 
their assemblies τ, “that they were often beset, they were often 
betrayed, they were daily seized, in their meetings and congre- 
gations: but no one ever found them acting such a tragedy, no 
one ever made evidence of their being such bloody Cyclopes 
and Syrens before a judge.” Nay, they were sometimes bar- 
barously murdered in their assemblies, whilst the laws forbade 
their meetings under the name of ‘ hetzeriz,’ and denied them 
their ‘areze,’ or ‘places of worship,’ as unlawful cabals, where 
they met only to plot treason and rebellion against the govern- 
ment. Under which pretence, Lactantius* and Eusebius Y tell 
us, one of the heathen judges burnt a whole city of people in 
Phrygia, together with their church, where they were met 
together to worship God. And the laws forbidding their 
assemblies, are mentioned both by Pliny and the Christian 


VY Tertul. de Fuga, ec. xiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 543.) Quomodo colligemus, quo- 

modo Dominica solemnia celebrabimus ὃ Utique quomodo et apostoli; fide, non 
pecunia tuti; quze fides si montem transferre potest, multo magis militem. .. . 
Si colligere interdiu non potes, habes noctem, luce Christi luminosa adversus 
eam. : 
W Thid. Apolog. ς. vii. (Paris. 1664. p. 8, A.) Quotidie obsidemur, quotidie 
prodimur: in ipsis plurimum ccetibus et congregationibus nostris opprimimur. 
Quis umquam taliter vagienti infanti supervenit ? Quis cruenta, ut invenerat, 
Cyclopum et Sirenarum ora judici reservavit ? 

* Lactant. lib. v. 6. xi, (Dufresnoy, Paris. 1748. vol. i. p. 390.) Aliqui ad 
occidendum precipites extiterunt, sicut unus in Phrygia, qui universum popu- 
lum cum ipso pariter conventiculo concremavit. 

y Euseb. lib. viii. ec. xi. (Reading, 1720. p. 390.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. 
p. 249.) Ἤδη γοῦν ὅλην Χριστιανῶν πολίχνην αὔτανδρον ἀμφὶ τὴν Φρυγίαν 
ἐν κύκλῳ περιβαλόντες ὁπλῖται, πῦρ τε ὑφάψαντες, κατέφλεξαν αὐτοὺς ἅμα 
νηπίοις καὶ γυναιξὶ, τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸν Χριστὸν ἐπιβοωμένους. 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 45 


writers’. So that, in these times of difficulty, the Christians 
could not meet for Divine worship, but at the hazard of their 
lives ; and yet they did not think this a sufficient excuse to 
forsake the assembling of themselves together, but met con- 
tinually to solemnize the Lord’s-day, in spite of all danger and 
opposition to the contrary. 


Sect. [X.—Thirdly, From their Studious Observation of the 
Vigils, or Nocturnal Assemblies, preceding the Lord’s-Day. 


A further instance of their zeal was shown in the studious 
observation of the long vigils, or nocturnal assemblies preced- 
ing the Lord’s-day. For though these were first begun in 
times of persecution, yet they continued them as a useful exer- 
cise of piety when the persecutions were over: and the great- 
est personages did not refuse to frequent and encourage them, 
as Sidonius Apollinaris particularly notes of Theodoric, king of 
the Goths*, that he usually came with a small guard to the 
morning, or antelucan, assemblies of his party (for he was by 
sect an Arian): which he did to promote the cause of the 
Arians, who commonly vied in zeal with the Catholics in this 
service. And this made the Catholics, both clergy and laity, 
princes and people, express a more earnest concern for the 
particular way of introducing the great service of the Lord’s- 
day, as I have had occasion more fuliy to demonstrate in a 
former Book». All that I shall remark further here is, that 
though this morning-service was very long (for it commonly 


Zz Plin. lib. x. ep. xevi. (Gierig. vol. ii. p. 515.) ... quibus peractis, morem 
sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coéundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen 
et innoxium: quod ipsum facere desiisse post edictum meum, quo secundum 
laudata tua hetzerias esse vetueram. Tertul. ad Scapul. ¢. iii. (Paris. 1664. 
p. 70, A.) Doleamus necesse est, quod nulla civitas impune latura sit sanguinis 
nostri effusionem. Sicut et sub Hilariano preeside, quum de areis sepulturarum 
nostrarum acclamassent, ‘Areze non sint;’ areze ipsorum non fuerunt: messes 
enim suas non egerunt, ete. Euseb, lib. ix. 6. ii. (Reading, p. 441.) Πρῶτον 
μὲν εἴργειν ἡμᾶς τῆς ἐν τοῖς κοιμητηρίοις συνόδου διὰ προφάσεως πειρᾶται. 

a Sidon. lib. i. ep. ii. (Bibl. V. Ῥ. Galland. vol. x. p. 464, C 5.) (Paris. 1609. 
p. 6.) Antelucanos sacerdotum sacrorum ccetus minimo comitatu expetit: grandi 
sedulitate veneratur: quamquam (si sermo secretus) possis animo advertere, 
quod servet istam pro consuetudine potius, quam pro religione reverentiam. 

b Vol. iv. book xiii. ch. ix. § iv. and ch. x. § ΧΙ. xii. 








46 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


continued in psalmody, hymns, and prayers, from midnight till 
break of day), yet it was generally attended with great alacrity 
and assiduity by men of all ranks, who voluntarily resorted to 
it without any necessity or compulsion laid upon them. And 
this was another instance of their great zeal in the religious 
observation of the Lord’s-day. 


Sect. X.—Fourthly, From their Attendance upon Sermons in 
many Places twice on this Day. 


It is worth our remarking also, that in many places, espe- 
cially in cities and churches of greater note, they had usually 
sermons twice on this day, and men resorted with diligence to 
the evening as well as the morning sermon. St. Chrysostom® 
sometimes commends the people of Antioch for their zeal in 
this matter. And there are several passages in St. Austin, 
St. Basil, Theodoret, and Gaudentius, which plainly refer to 
the same practice ; of which I need say no more here, because 
I have more fully represented them, in discoursing of the an- 
cient manner of preaching, in another place. 


Secr. XI.—Fifthly, From their Attendance on Evening- 
Prayers, where there was no Sermon. 


Yn such churches as had no evening-sermon, there was still 
the common service of evening-prayer ; and men generally 
thought themselves obliged to attend this as a necessary part 
of the public worship and solemnity of the Lord’s-day. Some, 
indeed, in these primitive ages, had their objections against 
this, which St. Chrysostom, in one of his homilies*, mentions, 


¢ Chrysostom. Hom. x. ad Popul. Antioch. See vol. iv. p. 539, note (q). 

a See vol. iv. p. 542. book xiv. ch. iv. § 8. 

© Chrysostom. Hom. iii. in 2 ad Thessal. (Bened. 1718. vol. xi. p. 528, B.) 
Ti εἰσέρχομαί, φησιν, εἰ οὐκ ἀκούω τινὸς ὁμιλοῦντος ; τοῦτο πάντα ἀπόλωλε 
καὶ διέφθειρε" τίς γὰρ χρεία ὁμιλητοῦ ; ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας ῥᾳθυμίας αὕτη ἡ 
χρεία γέγονε" διὰ τί γὰρ ὁμιλίας χρεία ; παντὰ σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ 
ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς" πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τέρψεώς ἐστε 
ἀκροαταὶ, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ταῦτα ζητεῖτε. Εἰπὲ γάρ μοι, ποίῳ κόμπῳ λόγου 
Παῦλος ἔλεγεν ; ἀλλ᾽ ὕμως τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐπέστρεψε: ποίῳ δὲ Πέτρος ὁ 
ἀγράμματος ; ᾿Αλλ’ οὐκ οἶδά, φησι, τὰ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς κείμενα" διὰ 
τί [οὐκ οἶδας]; μὴ γὰρ ‘EBpaiori; μὴ γὰρ Ῥωμαϊστί; μὴ γὰρ ἑτερογλώσσως 
εἴρηται ; οὐχὶ Ἑλληνιστὶ λέγεται ; ᾿Αλλ’ ἀσαφῶς, φησι ποῖον ἀσαφὲς, εἰπέ 


Cuap. II. § 11. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 47 


and smartly answers. ‘‘ Why should we go to church,” said 
they, “if we cannot hear a preacher?” “This one thing,” 
says Chrysostom in his reply, ‘has ruined and destroyed all 
religion. For what need is there of a preacher, except when 
that necessity arises from our sloth and negligence? What 
need is there of a homily, when all things necessary are plainly 
revealed in Scripture? Such hearers as desire to have some- 
thing new every day, only study to delight their ears and 
fancy. Tell me, what pompous train of words did St. Paul 
use? And yet he converted the world. What eloquent 
harangues did the illiterate Peter make? But the Scriptures 
are dark and hard to be understood, without a sermon to 
explain them. How so? Are they read in Hebrew, or Latin, 
or any other strange language? Are they not read in Greek 
to you that understand Greek? What difficulties do the his- 
tories contain? You may understand the plain places, and 
take some pains about the rest. Oh, but we have the same 
things read to us out of Scripture. And do you not hear the 
same things every day in the theatre? Have you not the 
same sight at the horse-race? Are not all things the same? 
Does not the same sun rise every morning? Do you not eat 
the same meat every day?” Hence he concludes, that all 
these were but pretences for idleness, or mere indications of a 
sceptical temper. So again, when some would have excused 
themselves from these prayers of the Church, by this frivolous 
plea, that they could pray at home, but they could not hear a 
sermon in their own houses ; and therefore they would come to 
sermon, but not to prayers: he makes this handsome reply‘: 


μοι; οὐχὶ ἱστορίαι εἰσί; Ta γὰρ σαφῆ οἶδας, iva περὶ τῶν ἀσαφῶν ἐρωτήσφῳς 5 
μυρίαι ἱστορίαι εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς" εἰπέ μοι μίαν ἐξ ἐκείνων" ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ 
ἐρεῖς" πρόφασις ταῦτα καὶ λόγοι. Kal’ ἡμέραν, φησὶ, τὰ αὐτά ἐστιν ἀκούειν. 
τί δὲ, εἰπὲ μοι, ἐν τοῖς θεάτροις οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ ἀκούεις ; ἐν ταῖς ἱπποδρομίαις 
οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ ὁρᾷς ; τὰ δὲ πράγματα πάντα οὐ τὰ αὐτά ἐστιν ; ὁ δὲ ἥλιος 
οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀεὶ ἀνατέλλει 3 τροφαῖς δὲ οὐ ταῖς αὐταῖς χρώμεθα :. .. 
πάντοθεν ῥᾳθυμίας καὶ σκήψεως τὰ ῥήματα. 

f Chrysostom. Hom. iii. de Incomprehensibili Dei Natura. (Bened. vol. i. 
Ρ. 469, C.) Εὔξασθαί φησι καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας δύναμαι, ὁμιλίας δὲ ἀκοῦσαι 
καὶ διδασκαλίας οὐ δυνατὸν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας: ἀπατᾷς σαυτὸν, ἄνθρωπε" 
εὔξασθαι μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας δυνατὸν, οὕτω δὲ εὔξασθαι, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας ἀδύνατον brov πατέρων πλῆθος τοσοῦτον, ὕπου βοὴ πρὸς τὸν 


48 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


“You deceive yourself, O man: for though you may pray at 
home, yet you cannot pray there in the same manner as you 
may in the church, where there are so many fathers together, 
and where the cry of your prayers is sent up to God with one 
consent. You are not heard so well, when you pray to God 
by yourself alone, as when you pray with your brethren. For 
there is something more here, consent of mind, and consent οἵ. 
voice, and the bond of charity, and the prayers of the priests 
together. For the priests, for this very reason, preside in the 
church, that the people’s prayers, which are weaker of them- 
selves, laying hold on those that are stronger, may, together 
with them, mount up to heaven.” In another place, answering 
the same vulgar plea, that men could pray at home, he tells 
them®, “* You may pray at home indeed; but your prayers are 
not of that efficacy and power, as when the whole body of the 
Church, with one mind, and one voice, send up their prayers 
together; the priests assisting, and offering up the prayers of 
the whole multitude in common.” This was the sense which 
that holy man had of public prayer on the Lord’s-day, though 
there was no sermon; and the method he took to show men 
their obligation to frequent the Church for public prayer, 
which, when men had opportunity to frequent it, was always 
to be preferred before private devotion. They might both 
very well consist together, and both be performed as proper 
exercises for the Lord’s-day: but the one was not to justle out 
the other, or to be pleaded as a rational excuse for absenting 
from the public service. He that would see this matter more 
fully stated, may look back to the discourse of Church-unity®, 


Θεὸν ὁμοθυμαδὸν avariprerar’ οὐχ οὕτως ἀκούῃ κατὰ σαυτὸν τὸν δεσπότην 
παρακαλῶν, ὡς μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τῶν σῶν" ἐνταῦθα γάρ ἐστί τι πλέον, 
οἷον ἡ ὁμόνοια καὶ συμφωνία, καὶ τῆς ἀγάπης ὁ σύνδεσμος, καὶ αἱ τῶν 
ἱερέων εὐχαί" διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο οἱ ἱερεῖς προεστήκασιν, ἵνα καὶ αἱ τοῦ πλήθους 
εὐχαὶ ἀσθενέστεραι οὖσαι, τῶν δυνατωτέρων τούτων ἐπιλαβόμεναι, ὁμοῦ 
συνανέλθωσιν αὐταῖς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. 

8. Ibid. Hom. ii. de Obscurit. Prophet. (Bened. 1718. vol. vi. p. 187, Ὁ 7.) 
Δύνασαι piv εὔξασθαι [ἐν οἰκίᾳ] οὐ τοσαύτην δὲ δύναμιν ἔχει ἡ εὐχὴ, ὡς 
ὅταν μετὰ τῶν μελῶν τῶν οἰκείων γίνηται, ὡς bray ὁλόκληρον τὸ σῶμα 
τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἀναπέμπῃ τὴν δέησιν μιᾷ φωνῇ, ἱερέων παρόντων 
καὶ τὰς εὐχὰς τοῦ κοινοῦ πλήθους ἀναφερόντων. 

h Vol. v. book xvi. ch. i. sect. v. 


Cuap. II. ὃ 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 49 


where men’s obligation to preserve the unity of worship, in 
joining with the Church in prayers, and administration of the 
word and sacraments, has been amply considered. 


Sect. XII.—Sixthly, From the Censures inflicted on those who 
violated the Laws concerning the Religious Observation of the 
Lord’s-Day. 


I shall but mention one instance more of their great zeal 
and concern for the religious observation of the Lord’s-day, 
and that is the Church’s care in making many good laws of 
discipline, for the censure and punishment of those who, in 
any considerable degree, violated the just observation of it. If 
any one absented for three Lord’s-days from the public assem- 
bly of the Church, without any just reason or necessity to 
compel him, this was an offence thought worthy of excommu- 
nication, as may be seen in the Canons of the Council of 
Eliberis‘, and Sardica, and Trullo. If any one went to the 
public games in the theatre or the circus on this day, he was 
liable to excommunication also for a single offence after a first 
admonition, as appears from the Councils of Carthage}, and 
the denunciations of St. Chrysostom. If any one left the 
church whilst the bishop was preaching, by a rule of the 
fourth Council of Carthage*, he was liable to the same con- 
demnation and censure. If any one came to church to hear 
the Scriptures read and the sermon preached, but refused to 
join in prayers, or the reception of the communion, which in 
those times was administered to all in general every Lord’s- 
day; he was to be excommunicated for his offence, and re- 
duced to the state of a penitent; as one who brought con- 
fusion and disorder into the Church. This we learn from the 


i Cone. liber. ὁ. xxi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 973.) Si quis in civitate positus tres 
Dominicas ad ecelesiam non accesserit, pauco (al. tanto) tempore abstineat, ut 
correptus esse videatur.— Cone. Sardie, e. Xi. Μέμνησθε, x. τ. A. See vol. v. 
book xvi. ch. i. sect. vy. note (b). Cone. Trul. 6. 1xxx. See ibid. note (6). 

i Cone. Carth. IV. 6. lxxxviii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1206.) Qui die solemni, 
preetermisso solemni ecclesize conventu, ad spectacula vadit, excommunicetur. 
Chrysost. Hom. vi. in Genes. See p. 36. sect. iv. note (0). 

k Cone. Carth. IV. ¢. xxiv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1204.) Sacerdote verbum faci- 
ente in ecclesia, qui egressus de auditorio fuerit, excommunicetur. 


VOL. VII. E 








50 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX, 


Apostolical Canons!, and the Councils of Antioch, Eliberis, and 
Toledo. If any one held a separate assembly, or frequented 
or encouraged any such, he was to be treated as a heretic or 
schismatic, for despising the service of the Lord’s-day. The 
Apostolical Canons excommunicate all such™; and the Coun- 
cil of Gangra lays the heaviest censure of anathema upon 
them". If any one perversely chose to make the Lord’s-day 
a day of fasting; because this was contrary to the general 
rule and practice of the Church, and gave suspicion of some 
heresy denying the resurrection of the Lord; the Apostolical 
Canons®, and the Council of Gangra?, and the fourth Council 
of Carthage‘, and the first of Braga‘, peremptorily denounce 
such a one excommunicate, and anathema, and no Catholic, as 
herding with the impious Manichees, Marcionites, and Priscil- 
lianists, and such other heretics as purposely chose to fast on 
the Lord’s-day, to show despite to the doctrine of our Saviour’s 
humanity and resurrection. I have discoursed these things at 
large, in giving an account of the unity and discipline of the 
Church in a former Book’; and therefore only just touch 
them here, to show with what zeal and concern the ancients 
laboured to establish the observation of the Lord’s-day, which 
they esteemed the queen and empress of all days, in which our 
life was raised again, and death conquered by our Lord and 
Saviour; as the author of the Epistle to the Magnesians, 
under the name of Ignatius, words itt, who, in this, speaks 


1 Can. Apost. ¢. vii. Cone. Antioch. ὁ. ii. Cone. Iliber. ¢. xviii. See Bingham, 
vol. v. p. 399. Cone. Tolet. I. 6. xiii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1225.) De his qui 
intrant in ecclesiam, et deprehenduntur nunquam communicare,. . . ad pceniten- 
tiam accedant. 

τὰ Can. Apost. ὁ. xxxii. (Bingham, vol. ν. p. 398.) 

Ὁ Cone. Gangrens. 6. v. (See Labbe, vol. ii. p. 425.) Εἴ τις διδάσκοι, τὸν 





οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐκαταφρόνητον εἶναι, καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ συνάξεις, ἀνάθεμα 
ν 
ἔστω. 





Can. vi. Ei τις παρὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἰδίᾳ ἐκκλησιάζοι, καὶ κατα- 
φρονῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐθέλοι πράττειν, μὴ συνόντος τοῦ 
πρεσβυτέρου κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

© Can. Apost. c. Ixv. See sect. v. note (4), p. 39. 

P Cone. Gangrens. 6. xviii. Ibid. note (e), p. 39. 

4 Cone. Carth. IV. ¢. Ixiv. Thid. note (b), p. 38. 

τ Cone. Bracar. I. ¢. iv. Ibid. note (ce), p. 38. 

§ Book xvi. vol. v. chap. i. seet. v.; and chap. viii. sect. iii. 

* Pseudo-Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. sect. ix. (Coteler. vol. ii. Amstel. p. 57.) 


Cuap. II]. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 5] 


the language of the ancients", who often style this day ‘the 
queen of days;’ as Buxtorf” observes the rabbins were used 
to term the Jewish Sabbath ‘ Malchah,’ that is, ‘ the queen of 
days ;’ from whom the Christians took the name, and trans- 
ferred it to the Lord’s-day, which is the proper Christian 
Sabbath. 





CHAPTER III. 


OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE SABBATH OR SATURDAY AS 
A WEEKLY FESTIVAL. 


Secr. L.—The Saturday or Sabbath always observed in the 
Eastern Church as a Festival. 


Next to the Lord’s-day, the ancient Christians were very 
careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh day, 
which was the ancient Jewish Sabbath. Some observed it as 
a fast, others as a festival; but all unanimously agreed in 
keeping it as a more solemn day of religious worship and. 
adoration. In the Eastern Church it was ever observed as 
a festival, one only Sabbath excepted, which was called ‘the 
Great Sabbath,’ between Good Friday and Haster-day, when 
our Saviour lay buried in the grave ; upon which account it 
was kept as a fast throughout the whole Church, But, set- 
ting aside that one Sabbath, all the rest were kept as festivals 


Μετὰ τὸ σαββατίσαι, ἑορταζέτω πᾶς φιλόχριστος τὴν κυριακὴν, THY ἀναστά- 
σιμον, τὴν βασιλίδα, τὴν ὕπατον πασῶν τῶν ἡμερῶν" . .. ἐν y καὶ ἡ ζωὴ 
ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλε, καὶ τοῦ θανάτου γέγονε νίκη ἐν Χριστῷ. 

u Nazianz. Orat. xliii. in Novam Dominicam. (Colon. 1690. vol. i. p. 703, B.) 
(Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 841.) Ἢ βασίλισσα τῶν ὡρῶν Ty βασιλίδι τῶν ἡμε- 
ρῶν πομπεύει. 

w Buxtorf. Synagog. Judaic. c. x. p. 246. Rabbini Sabbatum 73%, Malchah 
[sive reginam nominarunt. Jam si quis vestes regales, ante reginam illam com- 
pariturus, non indueret ; quales alias causa regum honorandorum quilibet in- 
duere soleret; per id regina talis dedecore magno adficeretur.] 1. e. Reginam 
appellaverunt: si vero vestes regize alio tempore induantur, quam ubi coram 
regina comparetur, dedecus admittitur, et regina ludibrio habetur. See the 
edition, Basil. 1661. p. 299. 


ἜΣ Ὁ 


52 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


in the Oriental Church. St. Austin, though he lived in a 
country where it was kept a fast, yet testifies for the contrary 
practice of the Eastern Church?. For writing to St. Jerome, 
he asks him, whether he thought an Oriental Christian, when 
he came to Rome, might not, without any dissimulation, fast 
on every Sabbath, as well as that one Sabbath called the 
Paschal vigil? ‘If we say it is a sin to fast on the Sabbath, 
we shall condemn not only the Roman Church, but many 
neighbouring Churches, and some at a greater distance, where 
that custom is kept and retained. But if we think it is a sin 
not to fast on the Sabbath, we shall rashly condemn all the 
Oriental Churches, and the greatest part of the Christian 
world. We should therefore rather say, it is a thing indiffer- 
ent in itself, which a good man may perform either way with- 
out dissimulation, complying with the society and observation 
of the Church where he happens to be.” From hence it is 
plain, that all the Oriental Churches, and the greatest part of 
the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival. And the Greek 
writers are unanimous in their testimony. The author of the 
Constitutions, who describes the customs chiefly of the Oriental 
Church, frequently speaks of it ®: ‘*On the Sabbath and the 
Lord’s-day, on which Christ rose from the dead, ye shall more 
carefully meet together, to praise God, who created all things 


a Aug. Epist. xix. ad Hieron. (Antverp. 1700. vol. ii. p. 147, A.) Vellem me 
doceret benigua Sinceritas tua, utrum simulate quisquam sanctus Orientalis, 
quum Romam venerit, jejunet Sabbato, excepto illo die Paschalis vigiliz : quod 
si malum esse dixerimus, non solum Romanam ecclesiam, sed etiam multa ei 
vicina, et aliquanto remotiora damnabimus, ubi mos idem tenetur et manet. 
Si autem non jejunare sabbato malum putaverimus; tot ecclesias Orientis, et 
multo majorem orbis Christiani partem, qua temeritate criminabimur? Placet- 
ne tibi, ut medium quiddam esse dicamus, quod tamen acceptabile sit ei, qui 
hoe non simulate, sed congruenti societate atque observantia fecerit ? 

> Constitut. lib. ii. 6. lix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 300, B.) Ἔν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαβ- 
βάτου καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναστασίμῳ, τῇ κυριακῇ, σπουδαιοτέρως ἀπαν- 
τᾶτε, αἷνον ἀναπέμποντες τῷ Θεῷ τῷ ποιήσαντι τὰ ὅλα διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ" καὶ 
αὐτὸν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐξαποστείλαντι καὶ συγχωρήσαντι παθεῖν, καὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν 
ἀναστήσαντι' ἐπεὶ τί ἀπολογήσεται τῷ Θεῷ, ὁ μὴ συνερχόμενος ἐν τῇδε τῷ 
ἡμέρᾳ ἀκούειν τοῦ σωτηρίου περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως λόγου ; ἐν ἡ καὶ τρὶς 
εὐχὰς ἑστῶτες ἐπιτελοῦμεν, μνήμης χάριν τοῦ διὰ τριῶν ἀναστάντος ἡμε- 
ρῶν" ἐν ἡ προφητῶν ἀνάγνωσις, καὶ εὐαγγελίου κηρυκία, καὶ θυσίας ἀνα- 
φορὰ, καὶ τροφῆς ἱερᾶς Sword. 


Cuap. 111. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 53 


by Jesus, to hear the Prophets and Gospel, read, to offer the 
oblation, and partake of the holy supper.” In another place, 
he says*, ‘Christ commanded them to fast on the Sabbath 
before Easter: not that they were to fast on the Sabbath, on 
which God rested from the creation, but only on that one 
Sabbath, when the Creator of the world lay under the earth.” 
And again ἃ, “On every Sabbath except one, and the Lord’s- 
day, ye shall hold festival assemblies. The Sabbath* and the 
Lord’s-day ye shall observe as festivals; because the one is a 
remembrance of the creation, and the other of the resurrection. 
But one Sabbath in the year, viz. that on which our Lord lay 
buried in the grave, ye shall keep as a fast and not a festival. 
For whilst the Creator lay under the earth, mourning was 
more becoming upon his account, than joy for the creation : 
because the Creator, in nature and dignity, is more honourable 
than all his creatures.” Finally ‘, he represents it as the order 
of the apostles Peter and Paul, that servants should work five 
days in the week, but on the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day they 
should rest, that they might have liberty to go to church for 
instruction in piety; on the Sabbath, in regard to the crea- 
tion; on the Lord’s-day, in regard to the resurrection. 
Athanasius likewise tells us%, that they held religious assem- 


© Ibid. lib. v. 6. xiv. παρήγγειλεν ἡμῖν αὐτὸς... αὐτὸ νηστεῦσαι τὸ σάβ- 
Baroy, οὐχ bre δεῖ τὸ σάββατον νηστεύειν, κατάπαυσιν δημιουργίας ὑπάρ- 
χον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐκεῖνο μόνον χρὴ νηστεύειν, τοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔτι ὑπὸ 
γῆν ὄντος. (P. 360.) 

d Τρ14. ¢. xix. p. 372. Πᾶν μέν τοι σάββατον, ἄνευ τοῦ ἑνὸς, καὶ πᾶσαν 
κυριακὴν, ἐπιτελοῦντες συνόδους, εὐφραίνεσθε. 

e Ibid. lib. vii. 6. xxiv. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 426.) Τὸ σάββατον μέν τοι καὶ 
τὴν κυριακὴν ἑορτάζετε, ὅτι τὸ μὲν, δημιουργίας ἐστὶν ὑπόμνημα, ἡ δὲ, 
ἀναστάσεως: ἕν δὲ μόνον σάββατον ὑμῖν φυλακτέον ἐν ὕλῳ τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ, τὸ 
τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ταφῆς, ὕπερ νηστεύειν προσῆκεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἑορτάζειν" ἐν 
ὅσῳ γὰρ ὁ δημιουργὸς ὑπὸ γῆν τυγχάνει, ἰσχυρότερον τὸ περὶ αὐτοῦ πένθος, 
τῆς κατὰ τὴν δημιουργίαν χαρᾶς" Ort ὁ δημιουργὸς τῶν αὐτοῦ δημιουργη- 
μάτων φύσει τε καὶ ἀξία τιμιώτερος. 

f Constitut. lib. viii. 6. xxxiii. (Labbe, νο]. 1. p. 497.) ᾿Εγὼ Πέτρος, καὶ 
ἐγὼ Παῦλος διατασσόμεθα' ἐργαζέσθωσαν οἱ δοῦλοι πέντε ἡμέρας" σάββατον 
δὲ καὶ κυριακὴν σχολαζέτωσαν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, διὰ τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῆς 
εὐσεβείας: τὸ μὲν γὰρ σάββατον εἴπομεν, δημιουργίας λόγον ἔχειν: τὴν δὲ 
κυριακὴν ἀναστάσεως. 

& Athanas. Hom. de Semente. (Patav..1777. ν 1... p. 46.) ᾿Εν ἡμέρᾳ σαβ- 
βάτου συνήχθημεν, οὐ νοσοῦντες ᾿Ιυυδαϊσμόν" οὐ γὰρ ἐφαττομέθα σαββάτων 


54 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


blies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with 
Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. 
Epiphanius says the same}, that it was a day of public assem- 
bly in many Churches, meaning the Oriental Churches, where 
it was kept a festival. 


Secr. I1.—Observed with the same Religious Solemnities as the 
Lord’s-Day. 


Other authors are more particular in describing the religious 
service of this day: and, so far as concerns public worship, 
they make it in all things conformable to that of the Lord’s- 
day: which is a further evidence of its being a festival. They 
tell us, they had not only the Scriptures read, as on the Lord’s- 
day, and sermons preached, but the communion administered 
also. Which is expressly said by Socrates‘, and Cassian *, 
and St. Basil', and Timothy of Alexandria™, and St. Austin ®, 
and the Council of Laodicea®: which Council particularly for- 
bids the offering of the eucharistical oblation ; or solemnizing 
any memorials of martyrs on any other days in Lent, beside 
the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day, because all other days were 


ψευδῶν: παραγεγόναμεν δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ, τὸν Κύριον τοῦ σαββάτου ᾿Ιησοῦν 
προσκυνήσοντες. 

h Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. sect. xxiv. (tom. i. p. 1107.) “Ey τισι δὲ τόποις 
καὶ ἐν τοῖς σάββασι συνάξεις ἐπιτελοῦσιν. 

1 Βοογαῦ, lib. v. ὁ. xxii. (Vales. p. 231.) lib. vi. ¢. viii. p. 255. 

* Cassian. Institut. lib. iii. 6. ii. (Paris. 1609. p. 30.) (Atrebat. 1628. p. 42.) 

! Basil. Ep. celxxxix. (See Bened. 172]. vol. iii. p. 54.) 

m Timoth. ὁ. xiii. 

n Aug. Ep. exviii. (vol. ii. p. 93.) 

© Cone. Laodie. 6. xliv. et ci. See also Cassian. Institut. lib. v. ¢. xxvi. 
(Paris. 1609. p. 95.) Vidimus alium in solitudine commorantem, qui numquam 
se sibi soli indulsisse cibum testatus est, sed etiam si per totos quinque dies ad 
ejus cellulam nullus e fratribus advenisset, refectionem jugiter distulisse, donee 
Sabbato vel Dominico die devote congregationis obtentu procedens ad eccle- 
siam, peregrinorum quempiam reperisset, quem exinde reducens ad cellulam, 
consorte eo refectionem corporis... adsumeret. Aster. Amasen. Hom. v. 
(Combefis, Auctar. tom. i. p. 78.) Καλὴ συνωρὶς τῶν δύο τούτων ἡμερῶν 
Χριστιανοῖς καὶ φιλοπόνοις τυγχάνει, τοῦ σαββάτου, καὶ τῆς κυριακῆς λέγω, 
ἣν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἑβδομάδα ὁ χρόνος ἀνακυκλῶν περιφέρει: ὡς γὰρ μητέρες 
ἢ τροφοὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὸν λαὸν ἀθροίζουσι, καὶ τοὺς ἱερέας παιδευτὰς 








προκαθέζουσι: δημαγωγοῦσι δὲ καὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ τοὺς διδασκάλους εἰς 
τὴν τῶν ψυχῶν ἐπιμέλειαν. 


Cuape. IIT. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 55 


days of fasting; but these, even in Lent, were kept as festivals 
and days of relaxation. I have once before had occasion to 
produce the testimonies of these several writers at large? ; and 
therefore it is sufficient here to make a short reference to them, 
to show the ancient manner of keeping the Sabbath festival in 
the Oriental Church. 


ὅτου. II].—But, in some other Respects, the Preference was 
given to the Lord’s-Day. 


Only here we are to observe, that though the substance of 
the service for the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day was the same, 
yet in rites and ceremonies a difference was made; and, in 
some other respects, the preference was given to the Lord’s- 
day above the Sabbath. For, first, we find no ecclesiastical 
laws obliging men to pray standing on the Sabbath. For that 
was a ceremony peculiar to the Lord’s-day, in memory of our 
Saviour’s resurrection. Nor, secondly, are there any imperial 
laws forbidding lawsuits and pleadings on this day. Nor, 
thirdly, any laws prohibiting the public shows and games, as 
on the Lord’s-day. Nor, fourthly, any laws obligmg men to 
abstain wholly from bodily labour. But, on the contrary, the 
Council of Laodicea? has a canon forbidding Christians to 
Judaize, or rest on the Sabbath, any further than was neces- 
sary for public worship: but they were to honour the Lord’s- 
day, and rest on it as Christians. And if any were found to 
Judaize, an anathema is pronounced against them. The like 
direction is given by the author of the Epistle to the Magne- 
sians, in conformity to this rulet, “ Let us not keep the Sab- 
bath after the Jewish manner, rejoicing in idleness: ‘ For he 
that will not work, neither let him eat; and in the sweat of 
thy face shalt thou eat thy bread,’ say the Divine oracles: but 


Ρ Book xiii. chap. ix. sect. iii. (vol. iv. p. 357.) 

4 Cone. Laodie. 6. xxix. See chap. ii. sect. iii, note (v). 

r Pseudo-Ignat. ad Magnes. n. ix. (Cotel. p. 57.) Μηκέτι οὖν σαββατίζωμεν 
Ἰουδαϊκῶς, καὶ ἀργίαις χαίροντες" ὁ μὴ ἐργαζόμενος γὰρ, μὴ ἐσθιέτω" ἐν 
ἱδρῶτι γὰρ τοῦ προσώπου σου φάγῃ τὸν ἄρτον σου; φασὶ τὰ λόγια ἀλλ᾽ 
ἕκαστος ὑμῶν σαββατιζέτω πνευματικῶς, μελέτῃ νόμου χαίρων, οὐ σώματος 
ἀνέσει, δημιουργίαν Θεοῦ θαυμάζων, οὐκ ἔωλα ἐσθίων, καὶ χλιαρὰ πίνων, 
καὶ μεμετρημένα βαδίζων, καὶ ὀρχήσει καὶ κρότοις νοῦν οὐκ ἔχουσι χαίρων. 


56 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


let every one of you keep the Sabbath spiritually, rejoicing in 
the meditation of the law, not in the rest of the body; admir- 
ing the workmanship of God, not eating things dressed the 
day before, nor drinking lukewarm drink, nor walking within 
a certain space, the limits of a Sabbath-day’s journey, nor tak- 
ing pleasure in dancing and shouting, which things have no 
sense or reason in them.” Here are several superstitions and 
vanities in the Jewish observation of the Sabbath reflected on 
by this author; but I only note the opposition he makes 
between the Christian and Jewish way of observing the Sab- 
bath in point of working. The Jews abstained wholly from 
working on the Sabbath; the Christians only so far as was 
necessary for their attendance upon Divine service in the 
church. And in this sense, I think, we are to understand 
the author of the Constitutions, when he says *, “ Let servants 
work five days in the week; but on the Sabbath and the 
Lord’s-day let them rest in the Church for their instruction 
in piety.” But if any think with Cotelerius, that he extends 
the rest of the Sabbath as far as that of the Lord’s-day, 
because he joins them both together ; I will not contend about 
it, but only say, he then contradicts the Laodicean fathers, 
who plainly forbid a total rest upon the Sabbath, to give some 
preference, in this respect, to the Lord’s-day, which was of 
greater esteem in the Christian Church. 


Secr. 1V.— Why the Ancient Church continued the Observation 
of the Jewish Sabbath. 


If it be inquired, why the ancient Chureh continued the 
observation of the Jewish Sabbath, when they took it to be 
only a temporary institution given to the Jews only, as cir- 
cumcision, and other typical rites of the law (which is expressly 
said by many of the ancient writers, particularly by Justin 
Martyr‘, Irenzeus", Tertullian*, Eusebius’, to name no more) ; 


S Constitut. lib. viii. ὁ. xxxiii. See sect. i. note (f). 

τ Just. Dial. cum Tryph. (Paris. 1742. p. 123.) 

a Tren. lib. iv. c. xxx. (Venet. 1742. vol. i. p. 246.) Quia non per hee justifi- 
eabatur homo, sed in signo data sunt populo, ostendit, quod ipse Abraham cir- 
cumeisione et sine observatione Sabbatorum ‘ credidit Deo, et reputatum est. illi 
ad justitiam et amicus Dei vocatus est.’ 


Cuap. III. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 57 


it is answered by learned men, that it was to comply with the 
Jewish converts, as they did in the use of many other indif- 
ferent things, so long as no doctrinal necessity was laid upon 
them: “ For? the Jews being generally the first converts to 
the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for 
the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the Sabbath, as that 
which had been appointed by God himself, as the memorial of 
his rest from the work of creation, settled by their great 
Master Moses, and celebrated by their ancestors for so many 
ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and were 
therefore very loth it should be wholly antiquated and laid 
aside. For this reason it seemed good to the prudence of 
those times, as in other of the Jewish rites, so in this, to 
indulge the humour of that people, and to keep the Sabbath 
as a day for religious offices, viz. public prayers, reading of 
- the Scriptures, preaching, celebration of the sacraments, and 
suchlike duties.” But when any one pretended to carry the 
observation of it further, either by introducing a doctrinal 
necessity, or pressing the observation of it precisely after the 
Jewish manner, they resolutely opposed it, as introducing 
Judaism into the Christian religion. For this reason the 
Ebionites were condemned for joining the observation of the 
Sabbath*, according to the law of the Jews, with the obser- 
yation of the Lord’s-day, after the manner of Christians. 
Against such the Council of Laodicea pronounces anathema Ὁ: 
that is, such as taught the necessity of keeping the Sabbath a 
perfect rest with the Jews. And in this sense we are to un- 


x Tertul. cont. Jud. ο. iv. (Paris. 1664. p. 186.) Sequitur, ut quatenus cir- 
cumcisionis carnalis, et legis veteris abolitio expuncta suis temporibus demon- 
stratur, ita Sabbati quoque observatio temporaria fuisse demonstretur. 

y Euseb. lib. i. e. iv. (Reading, 1720. p. 25. 38.) Οὔτε σώματος αὐτοῖς περι- 
τομῆς ἔμελλεν, Ore μὴ δὲ ἡμῖν. οὐ σαββάτων ἐπιτηρήσεως, ὅτι μὴ δὲ ἡμῖν" 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν τοιῶνδε τροφῶν παραφυλακῆς, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων διαστολῆς, 
ὅσα τοῖς μετέπειτα πρῶτος ἁπάντων Mwione ἀρξάμενος ἐν συμβόλοις 
τελεῖσθαι παραδέδωκεν, ὅτι μὴ δὲ νῦν Χριστιανῶν τὰ τοιαῦτα. 

z Caye’s Primitive Christianity, book i. chap. vii. London, 1782. p. 174. 

a Theodoret. de Fabul. Heeret. lib. ii. ec. 1. (Schulze, 1772. vol. iv. p. 328.) To 
μὲν σάββατον κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιουδαίων τιμῶσι νόμον, τὴν δὲ κυριακὴν καθιεροῦσι 
παραπλησίως ἡμῖν. 

b Cone. Laodie. c. xxix. See ch. ii. sect. iii, note (v), p. 30. 


58 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


derstand what Gregory the Great says°, “ that Antichrist will 
renew the observation of the Sabbath.” He must needs mean 
the observation of it after the Jewish manner, since, in the 
Christian way, it was observed as well by the Latin Church as 
the Greek ; only with this difference, that the Latins kept it a 
fast, and the Greeks a festival. 


Secr. V.—Why it was kept as a Festival in the Oriental 
Church. 


If it be inquired, what was the occasion of this difference, 
why the Greek Church observed it as a festival, and the Latin 
as a fast; I answer, the Greek Church received it as they 
found it delivered to them by the Jews, among whom it was 
always a festival. But, besides this, there was another reason 
inclinmg them to do it: for Marcion, the heretic, made it a 
part of his heresy to fast on the Sabbath, in opposition to the 
God of the Jews, pretending that there was another God to 
be worshipped beside the Creator of the world, who was the 
God of the Jews; and, therefore, he appointed the Sabbath to 
be kept a fast, that he might not seem to comply with the 
rites of the God of the Jews, who rested from his work of 
creation on the Sabbath, or seventh day. This is expressly 
said by Epiphanius*: “ Marcion, for this reason, fasted on 
the Sabbath ; for,” said he, “since that day is the rest of the 
God of the Jews, who made the world, and rested on the 
Sabbath-day ; we therefore fast on that day, that we may not 
do any thing in compliance with the God of the Jews.” Now 
this made the Catholics more zealous to keep the Sabbath a 
festival, that they might not seem to give any countenance to 
the wicked blasphemy and impiety of Marcion, or anyways re- 
flect upon the God of the Old Testament, whom they owned 
and honoured as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 


© Gregor. lib. xi. ep. iii. (Bened. Paris. 1705. vol. ii. p. 1213.) Diem Sabbatum 
atque Dominicum ab omni faciet opere custodiri. 

d Epiph. Heres. xlii. sect. iii, (Paris. 1622. vol. i. p. 304, B.) Td δὲ σάβ- 
Baroy νηστεύει, διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν" ἐπειδὴ, φησὶ, τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων 
ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνάπαυσις τοῦ πεποιηκότος τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐν τῇ ἑβδόμῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
ἀναπαυσαμένου, ἡμεῖς νηστεύσωμεν ταύτην, ἵνα μὴ τὸ καθῆκον τοῦ Θεοῦ 
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐργαζώμεθα. 


Cuap. II]. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 59 


Marcion did not: since he, in spite to the true God, made the 
Sabbath a fast, they thought it proper to keep it a festival, as 
it had always been from its first institution. And in opposition 
to his heresy, soon after it began to spread, a canon was made 
in the Church, which now we have among those called the 
Apostolical Canons °, that if any clergyman was found to fast 
on the Lord’s-day, or on the Sabbath, one only excepted, he 
should be deposed ; or, if he was a layman, be cast out of the 
communion of the Church. After Marcion there arose many 
other sects, who followed him in this particular singularity of 
keeping the Sabbath as a fast, though they did not all agree 
in the same reasons for doing it. The Eustathians did it for 
the exercise of an ascetic life, and the Massalians, or Euchites, 
on the same pretence; yet the Church would not allow them 
in their practice. The Marcianists, who were a distinct sect 
from the Marcionites, for they were so called from one Mar- 
cianus Trapezita, in the time of Justinian, kept the Sabbath 
also a fast. So did also the Sabbatians, Lampetians, Choreute, 
and Adelphians, who are condemned by Maximus £, and Ana- 
stasius δ, and Timotheus of Constantinople, and Nicephorus 
Patriarcha:; whose testimonies, collected and corrected out 
of manuscripts, the curious reader may find at large in Cote- 
lerius* and Combefis!. I only observe, that the Council of 


e Can. Apost. Ixv. See ch. ii. sect. v. note (d), p. 39. 

f Maxim. in Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarchia, 6. vi. (Venet. 1759. vol. 1. p. 83, 
C 6.) Σημείωσαι κατὰ Λαμπετιανῶν, ἦτοι Μεσσαλιανῶν ἢ ᾿Αδελφιανῶν, 
ταὐτὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν Μαρκιανιστῶν, κ. τ. Δ. 

g Απαβίαβ. quest. Ixiv. (p. 424.) Ὡς καί τινες πάλιν νηστεύουσι τεσσαρα- 
κοστὴν ἐν σαββάτῳ καὶ κυριακῇ" κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῶν λεγομένων Ἐῤσταθια- 
νῶν, καὶ Μαρκιανιστῶν, καὶ Λαμπετιανῶν, καὶ Μασσαλιανῶν, τῶν ἐν Παφλα- 
γονίᾳ ποτὲ ἀναφέντων. (See the Latin version, in Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. ix. 
p. 1014.) 

h Timoth. de iis qui ad fidem Catholicam accedunt. Μαρκιανισταὶ, οἱ ἀπὸ 
Μαρκιανοῦ τοῦ τραπεζίτου, καὶ Μεσσαλιανοὶ, καὶ Εὐτυχίται [potius Εὐχίται] 
καὶ ᾿Ενθουσιασταὶ, καὶ Χορευταὶ, καὶ Λαμπετιανοὶ, καὶ ᾿Αδελφιανοὶ, καὶ 
Εὐσταθιανοί.-------Τἴὰ in apparatu Possevini. Exemplari autem regio 2336 
aliter. See Coteler. Constitut. lib. v. 6. xv. (vol. i. p. 319.) 

i Niceph. Antirrhetic. (Coteler, p. 323.) ᾿Εκ τῆς συγγραφῆς Τιμοθέου πρεσ- 
βυτέρου τῆς κατὰ Μαρκιανιστῶν, ἤτοι ᾿Ακεφάλων᾽ καθ᾽ ὧν ἠγωνίσατο 
Κύριλλος ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, Φλαβιανὸς, καὶ Θεόδοτος ᾿Αντιοχείας; K. τ. Δ. 

k Coteler. in Constitut. lib. v. ¢. xv. (vol. i. p. 319.) 

1 Combefis. Histor. Monothelit. p. 461. 





60 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


Trullo, which was held an. 692, or 707, censures the Roman 
Church itself for fasting on this day, and orders them to cor- 
rect their practice. The words of the canon are remarkable™: 
‘“* Forasmuch as we understand, that, in the city of Rome, the 
Sabbath in Lent is kept as a fast, contrary to the rule and 
custom of the Church; it seemed good to the holy synod, that, 
in the Roman Church also, the ancient canon should be revived 
and enforced, which says, ‘If any clergyman be found to fast 
on the Lord’s-day, or on the Sabbath, one only excepted, let 
him be deposed ; if a layman, let him be excommunicated.’ ” 
From whence we may observe, that this custom of celebrating 
the Sabbath as a festival, was constantly and inviolably main- 
tained in the Greek Church without any variation. 


Sect. VI.—And why a Fast in the Roman, and some other of 
the Latin Churches. 


And there are some learned men of the Roman communion, 
who think it was so originally in the Latin Church also. 
Albaspinzeus is so clearly of this opinion®, that he thinks the 
Church of Rome herself at first observed the Sabbath as a 
festival. And it appears plainly from Tertullian, who, writing 
against the orthodox in favour of the Montanists, says ex- 
pressly, that both the Catholics and the Montanists excepted 
the Sabbath out of their fasts. ‘The Catholics,” he says°, 


™ Cone. Trul. ὁ. lv. al. lvi. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1167.) ᾿Επειδὴ μεμαθήκαμεν, 
ἐν τῇ Ῥωμαίων πόλει ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις τεσσαρακοστῆς νηστείαις τοῖς ταύτης 
σάββασι νηστεύειν, παρὰ τὴν παραδοθεῖσαν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἀκολουθίαν, 
ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ, ὥστε κρατεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀπαρα- 
σαλεύτως τὸν κανόνα τὸν λέγοντα ἘΠ τις κληρικὸς εὑρεθείη τῇ ἁγίᾳ 
κυριακῇ νηστεύων ἢ τὸ σάββατον, πλὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ μόνου, καθαιρείσθω" 
εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς, ἀφοριζέσθω. 

n Albaspin. Observat. lib. i. ¢. xiii. (Lutet. 1623. p. 83.) Quod ad Sabbatha 
attinet, Grzeci et Orientales eamdem pene rationem sequuti sunt. Nam ut ex 
antiquioribus auctoribus constat, festa celebritate colebantur, jejuniumque 
interdicebatur. Latinorum autem varius in ea re usus fuit. Ea enim alias 
perinde ac Greeci celebrarunt, sed sensim inductus est ille mos, ut jejunaretur, 
et tristitiae dies haberentur. 

° Tertul. de Jejun. c. xiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 532, C.) Et jejuniis Parasceuem ἢ 
quamquam vos etiam Sabbatum, si quando continuatis, numquam nisi in Pascha 
jejunandum, secundum rationem alibi redditam, ete. 


ὕπαρ. III. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 61 


“kept no Sabbath a fast, except the great Sabbath before 
Easter : and the Montanists, who observed twice in the year 
two weeks of xerophagie, or ‘fasts upon dry meats only P.” yet 
never fasted in them either on the Sabbath or the Lord’s-day.” 
So that it is next to impossible that the Sabbath should have 
been a fast in the Roman Church at this time, and yet not 
have been discerned by so acute a man as Tertullian, when it 
was so much for his cause in this dispute to have taken notice 
of it. However, it is certain, that not long after in the 
Roman, and some other of the Latin Churches, a change was 
made; but, then, the very manner of the change sufficiently 
discovers the novelty of it. The Council of Eliberis 4, which 
first introduced the Saturday fast into Spain, plainly intimates 
that it was not observed there before, till they first introduced 
it, and that, most probably, from the example of the Roman 
Church, where it had been settled a little before. St. Austin 
long after this observes *, that only the Roman, and some of 
the Western Churches, not all of them, kept the Sabbath a 
fast: and he notes more particularly’, in Africk, how they 
were divided in their practice: for in the Churches of the same 
province, and sometimes among the people of the same Church, 
it was very common for some to dine, and some to fast, on the 
Sabbath. But at Milan, which was a much nearer neighbour 
to Rome, the ancient custom still continued of keeping Satur- 
day always a festival. So that even in Lent, as St. Ambrose 


p Tbid. e. xv. (ibid. p. 532.) Duas in anno hebdomadas xerophagiarum, nec 
totas, exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis, offerimus Deo ; ete. 

4 Cone. Iliber. ὁ. xxvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 995.) Errorem placuit corrigi, ut 
omni Sabbati die [jejuniorum] superpositiones celebremus. Albaspin. in loc. 
‘ Superpositiones,’ id est, imponere jejunia, quze solita non essent observari. 
Cone. Agath. ὁ. xii. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1385.) Placuit, ut omnes ecclesice filii, 
exceptis diebus Dominicis, in quadragesima, etiam die Sabbato, sacerdotali 
ordinatione, et districtionis comminatione jejunent. 

r Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. (Antverp. 1700. vol. ii. p. 61, D.) Hine 
exorta est ista in reginze illius veste varietas, ut alii, sicut maxime populi 
Orientis, propter requiem significandam mallent relaxare jejunium : alii prop- 
ter humilitatem mortis Domini jejunare, sicut Romana et nonnulle Occidentis 








ecclesize. 
s Ibid. (p. 62, A.) Contingit maxime in Africa, ut una ecclesia, vel unius 
regionis ecclesize, alios habeant Sabbato prandentes, alios jejunantes. 


5 


62 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


himself assures us‘, not only the Lord’s-day, but every Sab- 
bath, except the great Sabbath before Haster, were observed 
as festivals, and days of relaxation: and for this reason, as the 
author of his Life tells us, he was used to dine upon Saturday 
as well as the Lord’s-day. Which is often noted also by 
St. Austin", in answering a scruple, which perplexed his 
mother Monnica, and some others, concerning the observation 
of this day, when they could not well account for the different 
practices of different Churches, some of which kept it as a fast, 
and others as a festival. To satisfy their doubts, he told 
them, that in all things of this nature, where the Scripture 
had determined nothing positively one way or other, the 
custom of the people of God, and the rules of our forefathers, 
were to be taken for a law: and to dispute about such things, 
and condemn the practice of one Church from the contrary 
custom of another, was to raise endless debates, and lose 
charity in the heat of contention. He added, “ That for the 
sake of his mother Monnica he once went to consult St. Am- 
brose upon this particular question; who told him, he could 
give no better advice in the case than to do as he himself did : 
‘For when I go to Rome,’ said he, ‘I fast on the Saturday, as 
they do at Rome; when I am here, I do not fast. So like- 
wise you, whatever Church you come to, observe the custom 
of the place, if you would neither give offence to others, nor 
take offence from them.’ With this answer,” he says, ‘“ he 
satisfied his mother, and ever after looked upon it as an oracle 
sent from heaven.” Nothing can be plainer now, than that 
the Saturday fast was not received in all the Churches of the 
West, since even at Milan it always continued to be a festival. 
And even those Churches, which turned it into a fast, could 
not agree about the reason and original of it. Some said it 
was instituted by St. Peter at Rome, upon a particular occa- 
sion: for when he was to contend with Simon Magus on the 
Lord’s-day *, for the danger of the great temptation he held a 


t Ambros. de Elia et Jejunio, c. x. (Bened. 1686. vol. i. p. 545, B 9.) Qua- 
dragesima totis preter Sabbatum et Dominicam jejunatur diebus. 

u Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 61, F.)—Epist. exviii. 
ad Januar. (p. 123.) 

x Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 58.) Est quidem et hee 


Cuap. III. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 63 


fast with the Church at Rome the day before; and having 
obtained a prosperous and glorious success thereby, he con- 
tinued the same custom, and some of the Western Churches 
followed his example. But many among the Romans them- 
selves rejected this as a mere fiction, even in St. Austin’s time, 
though others continued still in the belief of it, as appears 
from what is said in Cassian¥, and some later writers, about 
this fast in the Roman Church. Pope Innocent gives another 
reason for it”, ‘* Because on this day our Saviour lay buried 
in the grave, and the Apostles were in deep sorrow for their 
master, and hid themselves for fear of the Jews.” Which is 
the usual reason now assigned by the learned writers of the 
present Roman Church, Baronius, Bellarmine ἃ, Combefis>, and 
opinio plurimorum, quamyis eam esse falsam perhibeant plerique Romani, quod 
apostolus Petrus, cum Simone Mago die Dominico certaturus, propter ipsum 
magnze tentationis periculum, pridie cum ejusdem urbis ecclesia jejunaverit, 
et consequuto tam prospero gloriosoque successu, eumdem morem tenuerit, 
eumque imitatze sint nonnullee Occidentis ecclesize. 

y Cassian. Institut. lib. iii. ὁ. x. (Atrebat. 1628. p. 63.) Cujus moderaminis 
eausam nonnulli in quibusdam Occidentalibus civitatibus ignorantes, et maxime 
in Urbe, ideirco putant absolutionem Sabbati minime debere preesumi, quod 
apostolum Petrum in eodem die contra Simonem conflictaturum adserunt jeju- 
nasse, etc. Anonymus de Francis et reliquis Latinis ap. Combefis. Histor. 
Monothelitar. p. 429. Πολλοὶ δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν νηστεύουσι τὰ σάββατα, οἵτινες 
Σαββατιανοὶ ὀνομάζονται: καὶ ἐρωτώμενοι; διὰ τί ταύτην νηστεύουσι, προ- 
φασίζονται, ὅτι ἐν σαββάτου ἡμέρᾳ ἔῤῥιψε [ὁ Σίμων Πέτρος] τὸν Σίμωνα 
Μάγον, ὃς καὶ συντριβεὶς διεῤῥάγη" καὶ τούτου χάριν νηστεύουσι τὰ σάβ- 





Bara’ ψεύδονται o& ἀπὸ γάρ τινος Σαββατίου, τοῖς λόγοις καὶ τῇ ἀκέσει 
τοῦ Μάνεντος ὑπαχθεὶς, ἐξέμεσε καὶ αὐτὸς βλασφημίας ῥήματα, καὶ πολλὰς 
ἐκ τῶν προγραφεισῶν αἱρέσεων ἐκήρυξεν ὁ ἄθλιος" ὕστις ἐπαινέθη παρὰ τῶν 
᾿Αλεμάνων, καὶ ᾿Αφρικιανῶν" καὶ τῶν ᾿Ισπανίαν οἰκούντων, καὶ πολλῶν 
διαιτώντων ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ Ῥώμῃ τελευτῶντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, διετάξατο τοῖς αὐτοῦ 
μαθηταῖς, νηστεύειν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τὰ σάββατα, διότι Σαββάτιος κέκληται" 
καὶ ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης νηστείας μνείαν αὐτοῦ ποιοῦντες, μέμνηνται καὶ τῆς 
διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ. 

z Innocent. Epist. i. ad Decentium, 6. iv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1246.) Si sexta 
feria propter passionem Domini jejunamus, Sabbatum preetermittere non debe- 
mus, quod inter tristitiam atque letitiam temporis illius (Paschatis) videtur 
inclusum. Nam utique constat, apostolos biduo isto in mcerore fuisse, et prop- 
ter metum Judzeorum se occuluisse. 

a Baron. ad an. 57. n. cevii. (Luce, vol. i. p. 487.)——Bellarm. lib. ii. de 
Bonis Oper. c. xviii. (tom. iv. p. 469, edit. Colon. 1615.) Romana ecclesia et 
Occidens universus ... jejunat Sabbato ... in memoriam humilitatis Domini 
qui die Sabbati jacuit mortuus et clausus in sepulchro. 

b Combefis. Histor. Monothelit. (Paris. 1648. p. 431, A 3.) Probabilior vide- 


64: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


others. Yet this was only a conjecture of Pope Innocent, 
which may serve for a reason why the Roman Church might 
turn the Saturday into a fast before this time, but does not 
prove that to have been the original practice. Socrates makes 
the Roman Church to vary once more in this matter®: for, he 
says, in his time they did not fast on Saturdays at Rome, even 
in Lent, but only five days in the week. And Valesius and 
Menardus go further ‘4, and assert, that in the time of Pope 
Leo they kept but three days in the week fasting in Lent at 
Rome: for which they allege the words of Pope Leo himself, 
in one of his Lent Sermons*: ‘‘On the second, and fourth, 
and sixth days of the week, that is, Monday, Wednesday, and 
Friday, let us fast : and on the Sabbath celebrate our vigil at 
St. Peter’s Church.” But since Mr. Quesnel‘ and Pagi® have 


tur (ratio) quam Humbertus ex Sancto Silvestro refert, ut Latini in memoriam 
sepulturze Dominicze ac luctus discipnlorum Domini Sabbatis omnibus jejunent. 

ὁ Socrat. lib. v. ὁ. xxii. (Vales. p. 234, C.) (Reading, p. 294, 15.) Οἱ μὲν ἐν 
Ῥώμῃ, τρεῖς πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα ἑβδομάδας, πλὴν σαββάτου Kai κυριακῆς, 
συνημμένας νηστεύουσιν. 

ἃ Vales. in loc. (p. 55.) Immerito Baronius Socrati opponit testimonium 
Gregorii Magni. Aliter enim Socratis cetate, aliter Gregorii Magni temporibus, 
Romani per Quadragesimam jejunabant. Temporibus Leonis Papze, quibus fere 
zequalis fuit Socrates, Romani tribus duntaxat diebus hebdomadis jejunabant in 
Quadragesima, secunda scilicet, quarta et sexta feria, ut patet ex sermonibus 
ejusdem Papze de Quadragesima. Menard. in Sacrament. Gregorii, cited by 
Pagi. (p. 43, Antverp. 1705.) Hugo Menardus Sacramentarium S. Gregorii 
commentans, istam explicationem merito rejicit, ostenditque quatuor illos dies 





Gregorii ipsius zetate in usu non fuisse, nedum Leonis temporibus. In eam 
autem it ipse sententiam, non plures revera dies Rome tune temporis jejunio 
fuisse consecratos, quam qui in sermone a B. Leone designantur. 

e Leo, Sermon. iv. de Quadragesima. (see Venet. 1753. vol. i. pp. 43 and 
320.) Secunda (1), et quarta, et sexta feria jejunemus: Sabbato autem apud 
B. Petrum apostolum vigilias celebremus. Leonis Opera. (Venet. vol. ii. 
p. 1075.) 

f Quesnell. Dissertat. vi. de Jejunio Sabbati, ete. See following note (g). 

& Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 55, n. viii. (Aug. Vind. 1738. vol. i. p. 1005.) 
(Luce, vol. i. p. 488.) Ait vir eruditissimus (Quesnellus) Leonis non esse verba 
illa, quze objiciuntur, sed sermoni ejus esse superaddita, oceasione ac ratione 
mox explicanda. Nam penes antiquiores et melioris notz codices arbitrium est 
et jus et norma de dubiis veterum scriptorum foeetibus, aut interpolationibus 
decernendi, et in quinque vetustissimis MSS., uno nempe regio, duobus Thua- 
neis, Navarrico et San-Germanensi, verba illa absunt, totusque ille pannus a 
nobis descriptus desideratur. Eum itaque insititium esse non dubitandum. 
Norunt omnes in more fuisse apud monachos et clericos, homilias sermonesque 


Cuap. III. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 65 


shown this passage to be foisted into Leo’s Sermon by some 
later hand, from the authority of several manuscripts that want 
it; and since it is possible Socrates, being a Greek writer, 
might sometimes mistake the Roman customs, we will charge 
the Romans with no more alterations in this matter, because 
the Council of Trullo®, and all the modern Greeks, rather 
accuse them for keeping Saturday a fast, when all other 
Churches kept it a festival. It is sufficient to have shown, 
that both the Greek and Latin Church originally agreed in 
the same practice, observing the Sabbath, together with the 
Lord’s-day, as weekly festivals, and that even in Lent, the 
great Sabbath before Haster only excepted. 


SS. Patrum suis usibus aptare, atque aliqua addere, quee proprize solemnitati 
conyenirent. Quare arbitratur Quesnellus simile quid contigisse huic Sermoni iv. 
de Quadragesima; ab ea scilicet ad aliud jejunium translatum esse: atque ut 
pro more Leonis, et pro loci etiam consuetudine, feriarum que istis jejuniis 
deputatee erant, solemnis inter Officia fieret indictio, concinnata est przefata 
formula, quam bona fide transcripserunt ex libris Lectionariis, qui de 5. Leonis 
sermonibus in unum corpus colligendis et publicze luci dandis primi cogita- 
verunt. ‘Testis enim est Gregorius Turonensis (lib. x. ¢. xxxi.) Perpetuum 
illius urbis episcopum, qui Leonis equalis erat, aut suppar, terna in septimana 
jejunia instituisse a Martini depositione usque ad natale Domini, quod postea in 
Concilio Matisconensi primo (L. 5, 968), his verbis confirmatum, ‘ Ut a feria 
Sancti Martini usque ad natale Domini, secunda, [quarta,] et sexta Sabbati 
jejunetur, et sacrificia quadragesimali debeant ordine celebrari.? Hine sumta 
illa verba, in quibus explicandis ante Quesnellum frustra sudatum est. 
h Cone. Trul. ¢. lv. See sect. v. note (τη), p. 60. 


VOL. VII. F 


66 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


CHAPTER IV. 


OF THE FESTIVAL OF CHRIST'S NATIVITY AND EPIPHANY. 


Sect. I—The Nativity of Christ, anciently by some, said to be 
in May. 


Hirnerro we have considered the weekly festivals of the 
ancient Church, and now we are to speak of those that were 
annual, or only celebrated once a-year, such as the festivals of 
our Saviour’s Nativity and Epiphany, and Easter, and Pente- 
cost, and Ascension, and the anniversary commemorations of 
the apostles and martyrs. The nativity of our Saviour was not 
anciently fixed to the same day by all Churches, though Baro- 
nius* and other writers commonly assert, that both in the 
Greek and Latin Churches it was always observed on the 
twenty-fifth of December: which is a very great mistake in 
those learned men. For, not to mention what Clemens Alex- 
andrinus says of the Basilidian heretics», that they asserted, 
that Christ was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of 
the month, which the Egyptians call Pharmuthi, that. is, 
April; he says a more remarkable thing of some others’, who 
were more curious about the year and the day of Christ’s 
nativity, which they said was in the twenty-eighth year of 
Augustus Cesar, and the twenty-fifth day of the month 
Pachon ; which, though Pamelius artfully calls December, to 
serve the common hypothesis’, and impose upon his reader, 


2 Baron. Apparat. n. exxi. (Antverp. 1612. vol. i. p. 39.) Tam Latinorum, 
quam Grzecorum ecclesize pari consensione in eam conyeniunt sententiam, ut 
Redemtor noster sit natus vigesima quinta mensis Decembris. 

> Clement. Stromat. i. (Oxon. 1715. p. 408.) Nai μὴν τινὲς αὐτῶν φασὶ 
Φαρμουθὶ γεγεννῆσθαι κδ΄ ἢ Ke. 

© Ibid. p. 407, 18. Εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ περιεργότερον τῇ γενέσει τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν 
οὐ μόνον τὸ ἔτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν προστιθέντες. 

4 Pamel. Not. in Tertul. cont. Judeos, ec. viii. n. 78. Deinde addit (Clemens) 


Cuar. IV. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 67 


yet nothing is more certain than it signifies the month of 
May’, as Mr. Basnage has at large demonstrated out of 
Epiphanius and Theophilus Alexandrinus, who usually follow 
the Egyptian Calendar, where Pachon answers to our May ; 
as every one knows, who has any understanding in the several 
styles, by which the ancient writers made their chronological 
computations. 


Secr. II.—By others fixed to the Day of Epiphany, or 
siath of January. 


But what is more considerable in this matter is, that 
the greatest part of the Eastern Church, for three or four of 
the first ages, kept the feast of Christ’s Nativity on the same 
day, which is now called Epiphany, or the sixth of January, 
which denotes Christ’s manifestation to the world in four 
several respects, which at first were all commemorated upon 
this day, viz.: 1. By his nativity or incarnation, which was 
the appearance of God manifested in the flesh. 2. By the 
appearance of the star, which guided the Wise men unto 


aliorum sententiam, qui subtilius (inquit) natali Domini non solum annum sed 
et diem addunt, quem dicunt xxix. anno Augusti (sic enim legendum pro eo, 
quod mendose iterum est xxviii.) in xxv. mensis Pachon (quem nos Decembrem 
dicimus) natum.+: 

e Basnag. Critic. in Baron. pp. 216—224. Ecclesize suze disciplina imbutus, 
Pamelius Aigyptium Pachon Decembri vindicat notis in Tertullianum : ¢ Pachon 
quem nos Decembrem dicimus,’ n. 78. advers. Judzeos. Quo concesso admira- 
bili consensu Latinorum sententia cum AZgyptiorum opinione conspiraret. Sed 
Pamelius maxime fallitur: constat enim ab edito Christo sie menses esse diri- 


gendos. 
Aigypt. = Lat. Syro-Greco ex Epiphanio. 
Tybi Januarius Αὐδυναῖος 
Mechir Februarius Περίτιος 
Phamenoth Martius Δύστρος 
Pharmuthi Aprilis Zavrucog 
Pachon Maius ᾿Αρτεμίσιος 
Payni Junius Δαίσιος 
Epiphi Julius Tlavewoc 
Mesori Augustus Λῶος 
Thoth September Γορπαῖος 
Paophi October Ὑπερβερεταῖος 
Athyr November Δῖος 
ΟΠοῖΐδο, December. ᾿Απελλαῖος, K. τ. λ. 


Ε 2 


68 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


Christ at his birth, and was the Epiphany, or ‘manifestation 
of him to the Gentiles.” 3. By the glorious appearance that 
was made at his baptism, when the heavens were opened, and 
the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove, and 
lighted upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, 
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 
4. By the appearance or manifestation of his Divinity, when 
by his first miracle he turned the water into wine at the mar- 
riage of Cana, in Galilee. That this day was kept as our 
Saviour’s birth-day for several ages by the Churches of Egypt, 
Jerusalem, Antioch, Cyprus, and other Churches of the East, 
is so evident from good authorities‘, that among learned men 
it is now a thing beyond all dispute. Cassian® says expressly, 
that in his time all the Egyptian provinces, under the general 
name of Epiphany, understood as well the nativity of Christ as 
his baptism ; and, therefore, they did not commemorate those 
two mysteries upon two distinct days, as was usual in the 
Western provinces, but celebrated both of them together 
upon that one day’s festival. And Gennadius mentions one 
Timothy, a bishop", who composed a book concerning the 
nativity of the Lord, which he supposed to be on the day of 
Epiphany. Cotelerius not improperly conjecturesi, that this 
was no other than Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, though Dr. 
Cave* speaks of him as a later writer. But before the time 


f Coteler. in Constitut. Apost. lib. v. 6. xiii. (vol. ii. pp. 312, 313.) 

& Cassian. Collat. x. ο. xii. (Atrebat. 1628. p. 532.) (Paris. 1609. p. 383.) 
Epiphaniorum diem provincize illius sacerdotes, vel Dominici baptismi, vel 
secundum carnem nativitatis esse definiunt; et idcirco utriusque sacramenti 
solemnitatem non bifarize, ut in Occiduis provinciis, sed sub una diei hujus fes- 
tivitate concelebrant. 

h Gennad. de Seriptor. ὁ. lviii. (Venet. Vallars. vol. ii. p. 995.) Timotheus 
episcopus composuit librum ‘de Nativitate Domini secundum carnem,’ quam 
eredit in Epiphania factam. 

1 Coteler. Not. in Constitut. lib. v. ¢. xiii. p.316. Aigyptii, referente Cassiano, 
(Collat. x. ὁ. ii.) diem Epiphaniorum definiebant diem baptismi Dominici et 
Dominicze nativitatis. Unde forsan Timotheus ille episcopus, qui a Gennadio 
dicitur composuisse librum ‘ de Nativitate Domini,’ quam eredebat in Epipha- 
nia factam, est Timotheus Alexandrinus, 

K Cave, Histor. Liter. (Basil. 1741. vol. i. p. 393.) (p. 216. Genev. 1693.) 
Timotheus, episcopus, cujusnam urbis non constat. Claruit cirea annum 415. 
Seripsit librum ‘de Nativitate Domini secundum earnem,’ quam in die Epi- 
phanize contigisse arbitratus est. 


Crap. IV. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 69 


of the Council of Ephesus (an. 431), the Egyptians had 
altered the day of Christ’s nativity, and fixed it to the twenty- 
ninth day of their month Choeac, which is the twenty-fifth of 
December: as appears from the homily of Paulus Emisenus’, 
spoken before Cyril of Alexandria, and related in the Acts of 
that Council. It was not long before this, that the Churches 
of Antioch and Syria came into the western observation. 
For Chrysostom, in one of his homilies to the people of 
Antioch, tells them™, “‘ That ten years were not yet past since 
they came to the true knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth, 
which they kept before on Epiphany, till the Western Church 
gave them better information.” And from that time the 
Nativity and Epiphany were distinct festivals, as appears from 
other homilies of this writer", where he speaks distinctly of 
them as two days, which had been thought one and the same 
before. Epiphanius, who was bishop of Salamis or Constantia, 
the metropolis of Cyprus, often speaks of Christ’s nativity, and 
always follows the eastern calculation, fixing it to the same 
day with Epiphany, in the month of January. In one place 
he says®, “It is not lawful to fast on the day of Epiphany, on 
which day the Lord was born in the flesh.” In another he? 


1 Paul. Emisen. Homil. in Actis Cone. Ephesin. part. iii. ο, xxxi. (Labbe, 
vol. iii. Cone. p. 1095.) Ὁμιλία ἸΤαύλου ἐπισκόπου ’Epionc, λεχθεῖσα κθ΄. 
Χοιὰκ ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, καθημένου τοῦ μακαρίου Kupih- 
λου, εἰς τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

m Chrysost. Hom. xxxi. de Natali Christi. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 355, A 2.) 
Οὔπω δέκατόν ἐστιν ἔτος, ἐξ οὗ δήλη Kai γνώριμος ἡμῖν αὕτη ἡ ἡμέρα γε- 
γένηται"... παρὰ μὲν τοῖς τὴν ἑσπέραν οἰκοῦσιν ἄνωθεν γνωριζομένη, πρὸς 
ἡμᾶς δὲ κομισθεῖσα νῦν, καὶ ob πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ἀθρόον οὕτως ἀνέδραμε, 
κε τ Ne 

n Tbid. Hom. xxiv. de Baptism. Christi. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 369, Β ὅ.) Ὅτι 
μὲν οὖν ἐπιφάνεια ἡ παροῦσα λέγεται ἑορτὴ, δῆλόν ἐστι πᾶσιν. A little 
after: ᾿Αλλὰ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐχὶ ἡ ἡμέρα καθ᾽ ἣν ἐτέχθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἡμέρα καθ᾽ 
ἣν ἐβαπτίσθη, ἐπιφάνεια λέγεται; αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἡμέρα καθ᾽ ἣν ἐβαπ- 
τίσατο, καὶ τὴν τῶν ὑδάτων ἡγίασε φύσιν. 

ο Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. xxii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 1105, A 10.) Οὔτε ἐν 
ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἐπιφανίων, bre ἐγεννήθη ἐν σαρκὶ ὁ Κύριος, ἔξεστι νηστεῦσαι. 

Pp Ibid. Heeres. li. Alogor. n. xxiv. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 446, D.) Ῥεννηθέν- 
τος yap αὐτοῦ περὶ τὸν Ἰαννουάριον μῆνα, τουτέστι πρὸ ὀκτὼ εἰδῶν Ἴαν- 





νουαρίων, ἥτις ἐστὶ κατὰ Ῥωμαίους πέμπτη τοῦ Ἰαννουαρίου μηνὸς, κατὰ 
Αἰγυπτίους Τυβὶ ἑνδεκάτη, κατὰ Σύρους, εἴτουν “Ἕλληνας, Αὐδυναίου [ἕκτου 
ἕκτη, κατὰ Κυπρίους, εἴτουν Σαλαμινίους, πέμπτου πέμπτη, κατὰ Τ[αφίους 


"0 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


takes a great deal of pains to make his reader understand that 
Christ was born in January; “That is,” says he, “on the 
eighth of the Ides of January, which is the fifth’ of January, 
according to the Romans ; and the eleventh of Tybi, according 
to the Egyptians; and the sixth of Audynzeus, according to 
the Syro-Macedonians; and the fifth of the fifth month, 
according to the Cypriots, or Salaminians ; and the fourteenth 
of Julius, according to the Paphians; and the twenty-first of 
Aleom, according to the Arabians; and the thirteenth of 
Atarta’, according to the Cappadocians ; and the thirteenth of 
Tibeth, according to the Hebrews; and the sixth of Maimac- 
terion, according to the Athenians.” Nothing could be more 
particular in fixing the day of Christ’s nativity to that of 
Epiphany, or Epiphany to the fifth or sixth of January, than 
this so minute account of Epiphanius. Which is confirmed by 
St. Jerome, who, though he differed from Epiphanius as to the 
day of Christ’s nativity, yet intimates’ that there were some 
who still believed that Christ’s nativity was upon the Epiphany, 
which was the fifth of January, which the prophet Ezekiel 
called the fifth day of the fourth month, reckoning the first 
month from October, when the tithes were carried to the 
temple, after the harvest and vintage were gathered in, 
according to the custom of the Oriental nations. The author 
of the Homily upon the Epiphany among the works of Origen 


᾿Ιούλου τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη, κατὰ ΓΑραβας ᾿Αλεὼμ xa’, κατὰ Καππαδόκας 
᾿Αταρτᾶ ιγ΄, κατὰ Ἑβραίους Τιβιὴθ ιγ΄, κατὰ ᾿Αθηναίους Μαιμακτηριῶνος 
-΄. παρῆλθε τὰς προειρημένας ὑπατείας εἰκοσιεννέα πλήρεις, κ. τ. Δ. 

4 Some think this should be written the sixth of January, because the eighth 
of the Ides of January is the sixth of January in the Roman Calendar: but 
St. Jerome also places Epiphany upon the fifth of January, Comment. in 
Ezek. i. p. 459. And the Asiaties did so likewise. See Usser. de Anno Solari 
Macedonum et Asianorum, lib. ii. 

τ Epiphan. Heeres. li. Alogor. n. xvi. (Paris. 1622. vol. i. p. 439, A 5.) Ππρῶ- 
τὸν μὲν βαπτισθέντος αὐτοῦ κατ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους ᾿Αθὺρ δωδεκάτῃ πρὸ ἕξ εἰδῶν 
Νοεμβρίων, τουτέστι πρὸ ἑξήκοντα ἡμερῶν [πλήρης] τῆς ἡμέρας τῶν 
᾿Επιφανίων, ἥ ἐστιν ἡμέρα τῆς αὐτοῦ γεννήσεως κατὰ σάρκα. 

5 Hieron, Comment. in Ezech. i. (Bened. Venet. vol. v. p. 6, A.) Apud 
Orientales October erat primus mensis, et Januarius quartus. Quintam autem 
diem mensis adjungit, ut significet baptisma, in quo aperti sunt Christo coeli, et 
Epiphaniorum dies hue usque venerabilis est ; non, ut quidam putant, natalis in 
carne ; tune enim absconditus est, et non apparuit: quod huic tempori congruit, 
quando dictum est, ¢ Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui.’ 


Cuar. IV. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 71 


says the samet, “That there were different opinions and tra- 
ditions in the world about it: some said he was born upon that 
day, others said it was only the day of his baptism.” Pagi 
adds" Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius to the number of 
those who believed the nativity of Christ to be on the Epi- 
phany, or sixth of January: and considering where and when 
they lived, it is very probable they did so, though he cites no 
authority out of them: for not only the Alexandrians, but the 
Churches of Jerusalem and Palestine, where Eusebius lived, 
observed the Nativity of Christ on the same day with Epiphany 
for several ages; and pretended the authority of an epistle 
of St. James for their practice, till Juvenal, bishop of Jeru- 
salem, upon better information, reduced it to the twenty-fifth 
of December; as Cotelerius shows at large out of Basilius 
Cilix, Joannes Niceenus, and a homily under the name of St. 
Chrysostom, and other writers’. 


Secr. I1].—Jn the Latin Church always observed on the 
twenty-fifth of December. 

Thus stood the case in the Eastern Church for several 
ages; in those of the West it was generally observed, as 
now it is, a distinct festival from Epiphany, on the twentys 
fifth of December. For so, St. Austin says”, the current 
tradition was, that Christ was born on the eighth of the 
Kalends of January ; that is, on the twenty-fifth of December. 
And both Cassian* and St. Jerome say’, the Nativity and 


t Origen. Hom. viii. de Diversis. (Basil. 1571. vol. ii. p. 446.) Sive hodie natus 
est Dominus Jesus, sive hodie baptizatus, diversa quippe opinio fertur in mundo.+- 
See Latin version. (Paris. 1522. vol. iii. p. 127, H.) 

u Pagi, Apparat. Chrono]. ad Baron. n. xev. (n. exlvi. p. 37, edit. Antverp. 
1705.) [Not. de Eusebio quidem hie dicit Pagius, sed de Clemente Alexandrino 
prorsus alia.—Grischov. ] 

Vv Coteler. Not. in Constitut. lib. v. 6. xiii. p. 312, seqq. 

Ww Aug. de Trinit. lib. iv. e. v. Natus traditur octavo Kalendas Januarias. 

x Cassian. Collat. x. 6. ii. See sect. ii. note (g), p. 68. 

y Hieron. in Ezech. i. See before, note (s), p. 70. 
(Labbe, vol. i. p. 355.) Τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν ἑορτῶν φυλάσσετε, ἀδελφοὶ, Kai 


Constitut. lib. v. 6. xii. 





πρώτην ye τὴν γενέθλιον, ἥτις ὑμῖν ἐπιτελείσθω εἰκάδι πέμπτῃ τοῦ ἐνάτου 
μηνός" μεθ᾽ ἣν ἡ ἐπιφάνιος ὑμῖν ἔστω τιμιωτάτη; καθ᾽ ἣν ὁ Κύριος ἀνάδειξιν 
ἡμῖν τῆς [οἰκείας] θεότητος ἐποιήσατο" γενέσθω δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ ἕκτῃ τοῦ δεκά- 
Lib. viii. 6. xxxiii. (ibid. p. 498.) Τὴν τῶν γενεθλίων ἑορτὴν 





του μηνός. 


ἀργείτωσαν, διὰ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ τὴν ἀπροσδόκητον χάριν [4]. χαρὰν] δεδόσθαι 


42 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 
Epiphany were kept on different days in all the Western 
Churches. And both these were indifferently called ‘“ 'Theo- 
phania, et Epiphania, et prima et secunda Nativitas,” ‘the 
Epiphany, or manifestation of God, and his first and second 
Nativity :” that being the first, whereon he was born in the 
flesh ; and that his second Nativity, or Epiphany, whereon he 
was baptized, and manifested by a star to the Gentiles, as the 
reader may find largely demonstrated by Cotelerius’ and Sui- 
cerus*, out of Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Basil, Theodorus 
Studita, and several other writers. 


Secr. 1V.—The Original of this Festival derived from the 
Apostolical Age by some Ancient Writers. 


Now the original of this festival is by many learned men 
carried as high as the age of the apostles. Dr. Cave says”, the 
first footsteps he can find of it, are in the second century, 
though he doubts not but that it might be celebrated before. 
His authority is Theophilus, bishop of Czesarea, who lived 
about the reign of the Emperor Commodus (an. 192). But he 
quotes no book of Theophilus: therefore we are left to conjec- 
ture that he meant his paschal epistle, mentioned by Eusebius 
and St. Jerome, out of which Hospinian before had alleged 
these words, importing, that the French observed the nativity 
of Christ on the twenty-fifth of December; for they, says 
Hospinian®, argued thus, for the observation of the Paschal 


ἀνθρώποις, γεννηθῆναι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς 
, ΄ -Ὁ Ψ ~ ,ὔ ’ 
παρθένου ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τοῦ κόσμου: THY τῶν ἐπιφανίων ἑορτὴν ἀργείτωσαν, 





διὰ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνάδειξιν γεγενῆσθαι τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεότητος, κ. τ. δ. 
Opus Imperfect. sub nomine Chrysostomi ad Matth. xxiv. 23. (Bened. vol. vi. 
p- 207, C 2.) (Paris. 1836. p. 955, B.) Ab eequinoctio vernali duodecimi mensis 
incipiunt paullatim tepescere aéres per singulos dies, usque ad mensem tertium, 
et dies fieri noctibus longiores. Item ab eequinoctio autumnali mensis septimi 
incipiunt paullatim iterum frigescere aéres per singulos dies, et noctes fieri 
longiores diebus, usque ad mensem nonum, quando celebratur Christi natalis. 

Z Coteler. p. 312. 

4 Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. voce ᾿Επιφάνεια, tom. i. p. 1199. 

Ὁ Cave’s Primitive Christianity, part i. chap. vii. (London, 1682. p. 194.) For 
the antiquity of it, the first footsteps I find of it, are in the second century ; 
though I doubt not but it might be celebrated before, mentioned by Theophilus, 
bishop of Ceesarea, about the time of the Emperor Commodus. 

© Hospin. de Festis Christianor. p. 110. Sicut Domini natalem, quocumgque 
die Kalend. viii. Januarii (id est, vicesimus quintus Decembris) venerit, ita et 


Cuar. IV. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. "3 


festival: ‘ Sicut Domini natalem quocunque die viii. Kalen- 
darum Januarii venerit, ita et viii. Kalendarum Aprilis, quando 
resurrectio accidit, Christi debemus Pascha ecelebrare:” ‘ As 
we celebrate the Nativity of Christ on the eighth of the 
Kalends of January (that is, the twenty-fifth of December), 
whatever day of the week that happens to fall upon, so we 
ought to keep the Paschal feast on the eighth of the Kalends 
of April (that is, the twenty-fifth of March), because the resur- 
rection of Christ happened upon this day.” But still I am at 
a loss to find these words in Theophilus: for Bede, who 
relates the letter, has no more than these words in his synod- 
ical epistle*: “Galli, quacunque die octava Kalendarum Aprilium 
fuisset, quando Christi resurrectio tradebatur, semper Pascha 
celebrabant.” But there is no mention made at all of the 
nativity of Christ throughout the whole epistle, which seems to 
be spurious also, and of no credit. Certain enough, it is not 
that which is mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome: so that 
I Jay no stress upon this authority, as being neither full to the 
point, nor authentic. Hospinian and Dr. Cave allege further 
for its antiquity that sad story, which is related by Nicephorus® 
and Baronius‘ out of the ancient martyrologies, where it is 
said, ‘“‘ That when the persecution raged under Diocletian, at 
Nicomedia, among other acts of his barbarous cruelty, he 
finding multitudes of Christians, young and old, met together 
in the church upon the day of Christ’s nativity, to celebrate 


viii. Kalend. Aprilis (hoc est, vieesimo quinto Martii) quando resurrectio accidit 
Christi, debemus Pascha celebrare. [These words do not occur in the Geneva 
edition of 1674.] 

ἃ Beda, de AXquin. Vernali, de Ordinatione Feriarum Paschalium per Theo- 
philum Episcopum Czesariensem ac reliquorum Episcoporum Synodum. (Col. 
Agripp. 1688. vol. il. p. 232.) Galli, quacumque die octava Kalendarum Apri- 
lium fuisset, quando Christi resurrectio tradebatur, semper Pascha celebrabant. 
Habetur etiam ap. Bucherium, Com. in Canon. Paschal. Victorii, et ap. Lab- 
beum, Cone, tom. i. p. 596. 

e Niceph. lib. vii. 6. vi. (Paris. 1630. vol. i. p. 466.) ᾿Επεὶ δὴ ἡ τῶν Χρισ- 
τοῦ γενεθλίων ἐνίστατο ἑορτὴ, καὶ σύμπαν τὸ Χριστώνυμον πλῆθος ἐκ 
πάσης ἡλικίας ᾧ ἐκεῖσε νεῷ ἤθροιστο πανηγυρίζοντες τὰ γενέθλια, ἁρπάσας 
ἐκεῖνος ὡς ἕρμαιον τὸν καιρὸν, ὥστε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ μανίαν ἐκπλῆσαι, πέμψας 
συνέκλειε" καὶ περικύκλῳ πῦρ ἀνῆπτεν εὐθὺς, Kk. τ. A. 

f Baron. ad an. 301. n. xli-xlviii. (Luce, vol. iii. p. 303, 4.) Et sic omnes 
una cum ipso templo perirent. 


74: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


that festival, commanded the church-doors to be shut up, and 
fire to be put to it, which in a short time reduced them and the 
church to ashes.” This is probable enough, because we have 
the like instances of barbarity committed upon them in other 
places on the Lord’s-day; as has been related before out of 
Lactantius and Eusebius’. But it is more material, that 
Chrysostom says", ‘‘ That this day was of great antiquity and 
of long continuance, being famous and renowned in the Church 
from the beginning, far and wide from Thrace, as far as Gades, 
in Spain.” It is certain it was observed religiously in the 
time of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil, for they have both 
sermons upon the occasion; and Ammianus Marcellinus says’, 
‘« Julian, in the time of Constantius, pretending to be a Chris- 
tian, when in his heart he was a heathen, and had secretly 
revolted,—to conceal his apostasy, which was known only to a 
few of his confidants, went with the Christians to church, and 
performed the solemn worship of God with them, on the festival 
which they call Epiphany, and celebrate in the month of 
January.” Zonaras, in telling the same story, says it was on 
the nativity of Christ, which makes some conclude, that the 
Nativity and Epiphany were still in France the same festival. 
But, considering that France was one of the Western pro- 
vinces, where these festivals were always kept apart, it is more 
probable that Zonaras was mistaken in the day. However, 
we may safely conclude, that at this time both the Nativity and 
Epiphany were kept as festivals in France ; and that is enough, 
so far as we are concerned, to ascertain the antiquity of their 
observation. 





§ Lactant. lib. v. 6. xi. 
and (y), p. 44. 
ἃ Chrysostom. Hom, xxxi. de Baptismo Christi. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. Ρ. 395, 


Pesan e hs , Ph ; : 963 = 
D 2.) Τῶν δὲ ἀπολογουμένων, bri παλαιὰ Kai ἀρχαία ἐστὶ, καὶ ἄνωθεν τοῖς 


Kuseb. lib. viii. 6. xi. See ch. ii. sect. viii. note (x) 


ἀπὸ Θρᾷκης μέχρι Γαδείρων οἰκοῦσι κατάδηλος καὶ ἐπίσημος γέγονε. 

i Ammian. lib. xxi. (Lips. 1773. p. 211.) Ut heee interim celarentur, feriarum 
die, quem celebrantes mense Januario Christiani Epiphania dictitant, progressus 
in corum ecclesiam, solemniter numine orato, discessit. 


Cuar. IV. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 7 


σι 


Srcr. V.—This Festival observed with the same Religious 
Veneration as the Lord’s-Day. 


As to the manner of keeping this festival, we may observe 
they did it with the greatest veneration. For they always 
speak of it in the highest terms, as the principal festival of 
Christians, from which all others took their original. Chrysos- 
tom styles it, ‘the most venerable and tremendous of all 
festivals:’ and ‘the metropolis or mother of all festivals : 
addingj, ‘That from this both the ‘ Theophania’ (so he styles 
Epiphany), and the holy Paschal feast, and the Assumption, 
or Ascension, and Pentecost, took their original. For if 
Christ had not been born according to the flesh, he had not 
been baptized, which is the ‘Theophania,’ or Epiphany ; 
neither had he been crucified, which is the Paschal festival ; 
neither had he sent the Holy Ghost, which is our Pentecost. 
But we do not give this festival the preference merely upon 


1 Chrysostom. Hom. xxxi. de Philogonio. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 497, B 10.) 
Kai yap ἑορτὴ μέλλει προσελαύνειν, ἡ πασῶν ἑορτῶν σεμνοτάτη καὶ φρικω- 
δεστάτη, ἣν οὐκ ἄν τις ἁμάρτοι, μητρύπολιν πασῶν τῶν ἑορτῶν προσειπών" 
τίς δὲ ἐστιν αὕτη ; ἡ κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ Χριστοῦ γέννησις" ἀπὸ γὰρ ταύτης 
τὰ θεοφάνια, καὶ τὸ πάσχα τὸ ἱερὸν, καὶ ἡ ἀνάληψις, καὶ ἡ πεντηκοστὴ 
τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἔλαβον" εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐτέχθη κατὰ σάρκα ὁ 
Χριστὸς, οὐκ ἂν ἐβαπτίσθη, ὕπερ ἐστὶ τὰ θεοφάνια' οὐκ ἂν ἐσταυρώθη, ὕπερ 
ἐστὶ τὸ πάσχα' οὐκ ἂν τὸ πνεῦμα κατέπεμψεν, ὕπερ ἐστὶν ἡ πεντηκοστή" 
ὥστε ἐντεῦθεν, ὥσπερ ἀπό τινος πηγῆς ποταμοὶ διάφοροι ῥυέντες, αὗται 
ἐτέχθησαν ἡμῖν αἱ ἑορταί" ov κατὰ τοῦτο δὲ μόνον δικαία ταύτης ἂν εἴη 
τῆς προσεδρίας ἀπολαύειν ἡ ἡμέρα, ἀλλ᾽ Ore καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γενόμενον τῶν 
ἄλλων ἁπάντων πολὺ φρικωδέστερόν ἐστι τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον 
τὸν Χριστὸν ἀποθανεῖν, τῆς ἀκολουθίας λοιπὸν ἣν" εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἁμαρτίαν 
οὐκ ἐποίησεν: ἀλλὰ θνητὸν σῶμα ἀνέλαβεν" καὶ ἣν μὲν καὶ τοῦτο θαυμασ- 
τόν: τὸ δὲ Θεὸν ὄντα ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι 
τοσοῦτον, ὅσον οὐδὲ διάνοια δέξασθαι δύναται, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ φρικωδέστατον, 
καὶ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον ὃ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγεν, Καὶ ὁμολογου- 
μένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ποῖον μέγα ; Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη 
ἐν σαρκί: καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ" Οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ 
σπέρματος ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται: ὅθεν ὥφειλε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς 
ὁμοιωθῆναι" διὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα ἀσπάζομαι τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην καὶ φιλῶ, καὶ 
τὸν ἔρωτα εἰς μέσον προτίθημι; ἵνα κοινωνοὺς ὑμᾶς ποιήσω τοῦ φίλτρου" 
διὰ τοῦτο δέομαι πάντων ὑμῶν καὶ ἀντιβολῶ, μετὰ πάσης σπουδὴς καὶ 
προθυμίας παραγενέσθαι, τὴν οἰκίαν ἕκαστον κενώσαντα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ" ἵνα 
ἴδωμεν τὸν Δεσπότην ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς φάτνης κείμενον; ἐσπαργανωμένον, τὸ 
φρικτὸν ἐκεῖνο καὶ παράδοξον θέαμα. 


76 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX, 


this account, but because the thing that was done upon this 
day, was more tremendous than all others. For that Christ 
should die, when he was a man, was a thing of natural conse- 
quence : but that when he was God, he should be willing to be 
made man, and condescend to humble himself beyond all ima- 
gination and conception ; this is indeed wonderful and astonish- 
ing in the highest degree. In admiration of this, St. Paul, as 
it were in a rapture, says, ‘ Without controversy, great is the 
mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh. For 
this reason chiefly I love and embrace this day, and propound 
it to you, that I may make you partakers of the same induce- 
ment of love. I therefore pray and beseech you, come with all 
diligence and alacrity, every man first purging his own house, 
to see our Lord wrapt in swaddling clothes and lying in a 
manger ; a tremendous and wonderful sight indeed!” Thus 
the holy father invites his auditory, five days beforehand, to 
celebrate the Nativity of Christ. And we may observe, that 
the day was kept with the same veneration and religious 
solemnity as the Lord’s-day. For they had always sermons 
on this day ; of which there are many instances in Chrysostom, 
Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Austin, Leo, Chrysologus, and 
many others. Neither did they let this day ever pass without 
a solemn communion. For Chrysostom, in this very place, 
invites his people to the holy table, telling them*, “That if 
they came with faith, they might see Christ lying in the 
manger ; for the holy table supplied the place of the manger ; 
the body of the Lord was laid upon the holy table, not, as 
before, wrapt in swaddling clothes, but invested on every side 
with the Holy Spirit.” And that the solemnity might be 
more universally observed, liberty was granted, on this day, to 
servants to rest from their ordinary labours, as on the Sabbath 
and the Lord’s-day. This is particularly mentioned by the 
author of the Apostolical Constitutions!': ‘ Let servants rest 


k Chrysostom. Hom. xxxi. de Philogonio. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 498, A 8.) 
Kai γὰρ ἂν μετὰ πίστεως παραγενώμεθα, πάντως αὐτὸν ὀψόμεθα ἐπὶ τῆς 
φάτνης κείμενον. ἡ γὰρ τράπεζα αὕτη τάξιν τῆς φάτνης πληροῖ" καὶ γὰρ 
καὶ ἐνταῦθα κείσεται τὸ σῶμα τὸ δεσποτικόν' οὐχὶ ἐσπαργανωμένον, καθ- 
amep τότε, ἀλλὰ πανταχόθεν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι περιστελλόμενον. 

1 Constitut. lib. viii. 6. xXxiii. See before, sect. iii, note (y), p. 71. 


Cuap. 1V. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ra 


from their labour on the day of Christ’s Nativity, because on 
this day an unexpected blessing was given unto men, in that 
the Word of God, Jesus Christ, was born of the Virgin Mary 
for the salvation of the world.” And all fasting wasas strictly 
prohibited on this festival as on the Lord’s-day: and no one, 
without suspicion of some impious heresy, could go against 
this rule, as appears from what Pope Leo says of the Priscil- 
lianists™, that they dishonoured the day of Christ’s Nativity 
and the Lord’s-day by fasting, which they pretended they did 
only for the exercise of devotion in an ascetic life; but in 
reality it was to affront the days of his nativity and resurrection, 
because with Cerdon, and Marcion, and the Manichees, they 
neither believed the truth of our Saviour’s incarnation nor 
his resurrection. Therefore, in opposition to these and such 
like heresies, the Church was always very jealous of any who 
pretended to make a fast of the Nativity of Christ. 

Finally, to show all possible honour to this day, the Church 
obliged all persons to frequent religious assemblies in the city 
churches, and not go to any of the lesser churches in the 
country, except some necessity of sickness or infirmity com- 
pelled them so to do™. And the laws of the state prohibited 
all public games and shows on this day, as on the Lord’s-day. 
For though at first the prohibition only extended to the Lord’s- 
day, yet Theodosius Junior, by a new law, restrained them on 
the Lord’s-day, and Epiphany, and the Paschal festival, and 
the fifty days of Pentecost®, because at these times the minds 


m Leo, Epist. xciii. ad Turibium, ec. iv. (Labbe, vol. iii. p. 1412.) (Venet. 
1753. vol. i. p. 699.) Natalem Christi quem secundum susceptionem veri homi- 
nis Catholica ecclesia veneratur, quia ‘ Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in 
nobis,’ non vere isti honorent, sed honorare se simulent, jejunantes eodem die 
sicut et die Dominico, qui est dies resurrectionis Christi. Quod utique ideo 
faciunt, quia Christum Dominum in vera hominis natura natum esse’ non cre- 
dunt, sed per quamdam illusionem ostentata videri volunt, quee vera non fuerint; 
sequentes dogma Cerdonis atque Marcionis, et cognatis suis Manichzeis per 


omnia concordantes. Vid. Cone. Bracar. I. 6. iv. (tom. ν. p. 873.) [where 





the same words occur. } 

n Cone. Aurel. 1. 6. xxv. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1408.) Ut nulli civium Pasche, 
natalis Domini, vel quadragesimze [quinquagesimze] solemnia [solemnitatem] in 
villa liceat celebrare, nisi quem infirmitas probabitur tenuisse. 

© Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectaculis, leg. v. (Lugd. 1665. vol. ν. 
p. 353.) Dominico et Natali, atque Epiphaniorum Christi, Paschze etiam et 


78 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


of Christians ought to be wholly employed in the worship and 
service of God. Some also think’, the very design of appoint- 
ing the feast of Christ’s Nativity and Epiphany at this season 
of the year, was chiefly to oppose the vanities and excesses 
which the heathen indulged themselves in upon their Saturnalia 
and Kalends of January at this very time of the year. 
Nazianzen’s exhortation to his people on the Nativity of Christ 
seems directly intended against them, when he thus endeavours 
to guard his auditory from running into the same abuses‘: 
“μοῦ us celebrate this festival, not after the way of the world, 
but in a Divine and celestial manner; not minding our own 
things, but the things of the Lord; not the things that tend to 
make us sick and infirm, but those things which will heal and 


Quinquagesimee diebus ... omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate, per 
universas urbes, earumdem populis denegata, totee Christianorum ac fidelium 
mentes Dei cultibus occupantur, ete. 

P Hospin. de Festis Christianor. p. 111. [These words do not occur in the 
Geneva edition of 1674. ] 

4 Nazianz. Orat. xxxviii. in Theophaniam sive Natalem Christi. (Bened. 
1778. vol. i. p. 665, C 5.) Τοιγαροῦν ἑορτάζωμεν, μὴ πανηγυρικῶς, ἀλλὰ 
θεϊκῶς" μὴ κοσμικῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερκοσμίως" μὴ τὰ ἡμέτερα, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοῦ ἡμετέ- 
ρου, μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ τοῦ Δεσπότου: μὴ τὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῆς 
ἰατρείας" μὴ τὰ τῆς πλάσεως, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῆς ἀναπλάσεως: ἔσται δὲ τοῦτο 
πῶς : μὴ πρόθυρα στεφανώσωμεν, μὴ χοροὺς συστησώμεθα, μὴ κοσμήσωμεν 
ayviac, μὴ ὀφθαλμὸν ἑστιάσωμεν, μὴ ἀκοὴν καταυλήσωμεν, μὴ ὄσφρησιν 
ἐκθηλύνωμεν, μὴ γεῦσιν καταπορνεύσωμεν, μὴ ἁφῇ χαρισώμεθα ταῖς προ- 
χείροις εἰς κακίαν ὁδοῖς, καὶ εἰσόδοις τῆς ἁμαρτίας" μὴ ἐσθῆτι μαλακισθῶμεν, 
ἁπαλῇ τε καὶ περιῤῥεούσῃ, καὶ ἧς τὸ κάλλιστον ἀχρηστία' μὴ λίθων 
διαυγείαις, μὴ χρυσοῦ περιλάμψεσι, μὴ χρωμάτων σοφίσμασι ψευδομένων τὸ 
φυσικὸν κάλλος, καὶ κατὰ τῆς εἰκόνος ἐξευρημένων" μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, 
οἷς κοίτας καὶ ἀσελγείας οἶδα συνεζευγμένας" ἐπειδὴ κακῶν διδασκάλων κακὰ 
τὰ μαθήματα' μᾶλλον δὲ πονηρῶν σπερμάτων πονηρὰ τὰ γεώργια' μὴ 
στιβάδας ὑψηλὰς πηξώμεθα σκηνοποιοῦντες τῇ γαστρὶ τὰ τῆς θρύψεως" μὴ 
τιμήσωμεν οἴνων τοὺς ἀνθοσμίας, ὀψοποιῶν μαγγανείας, μύρων πολυτελείας" 
μὴ γῆ καὶ θάλασσα τὴν τιμίαν ἡμῖν κόπρον δωροφορείτωσαν" οὕτω γὰρ ἐγὼ 
τιμᾷν οἶδα τρυφήν" μὴ ἄλλος ἄλλον ἀκρασίᾳ νικᾷν σπουδάζωμεν" ἀκρασίᾳ 
γὰρ ἐμοὶ πᾶν τὸ περιττὸν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὴν χρείαν: καὶ ταῦτα πεινώντων 
ἄλλων, καὶ δεομένων, τῶν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ τε καὶ κράματος. ᾿Αλλὰ 
ταῦτα μὲν “Ἕλλησι παρῶμεν, καὶ "Ἑλληνικοῖς κόμποις καὶ πανηγύρεσιν" οἱ 
καὶ θεοὺς ὀνομάζουσι κνίσσαις᾽ χαίροντας, καὶ ἀκολούθως τὸ θεῖον τῇ γαστρὶ 
θεραπεύουσι: πονηροὶ πονηρῶν δαιμόνων καὶ πλάσται, καὶ μυσταγωγοὶ, καὶ 
μύσται τυγχάνοντες" ἡμεῖς δὲ, οἷς λόγος τὸ προσκυνούμενον, κἄν τι δέῃ 
τρυφᾷν, ἐν λόγῳ τρυφήσωμεν, καὶ θείῳ νόμῳ, καὶ διηγήμασι τοῖς τε ἄλλοις 


τ - 


καὶ ἐξ ὧν ἡ παροῦσα πανήγυρις. 


Crap. IV. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 79 
eure us. Let us not crown our doors with garlands, nor exer- 
cise ourselves in dances; let us not adorn our streets, nor feed 
our eyes, nor gratify our ears with music, nor any of our 
senses, touching, tasting, smelling, with any of those things 
that lead the way to vice, and are the inlets of sin. Let us 
not effeminately adorn ourselves with soft clothing, nor jewels, 
nor gold, nor artificial colours invented to destroy the Divine 
image in us: let us not indulge rioting and drunkenness, which 
are frequently attended with chambering and wantonness ; let 
us not set up our lofty canopies or tables, providing delicacies 
for the belly ; nor be enamoured with the fragrancy of wines ; 
or niceties of cookery, and precious ointments: let not sea 
and land present us with their precious dung,—for that is the 
best name I can give their delights; nor let any of us strive to 
outdo one another in luxury and intemperance. But let us 
leave these things to the heathen, and to their heathenish 
pomps and festivals, who give the name of gods to those who 
delight in the smell of sacrifices, and agreeably worship their 
deities with the belly, being wicked makers of wicked devils, 
and as wicked priests and worshippers of them. But let us, 
who worship the Word of God, place our delights in the 
Divine Law, and such discourses as are proper and agreeable 
to the present festival.” 


Srecr. VI.—Of Epiphany as a distinct Festival. 


As to Epiphany, they who observed it as a distinct festival 
from the Nativity, did it chiefly upon the account of our 
Sayiour’s baptism, and the appearing of the star which con- 
ducted the Wise men of the East to come and worship our 
Saviour. To which some added two other reasons, that of 
our Saviour’s first miracle, wrought at Cana in Galilee, when 
he turned the water into wine; and that other miracle of his 
feeding five thousand men with five loaves. All which are put 
together in one of the sermons, which go under the name of 
St. Austin, upon this day. “On this day,” says he', “ we 


r Aug. Serm. xxix. de Tempore. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. App. p. 171, F.) Hodie 
illud sacramentum colimus,.quo se in homine Deus virtutibus declaravit, pro eo 
quod in hae die, sive quod in ccelo ortus sui nuntium preebuit; sive quod in 


80 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


celebrate the mystery of God’s manifesting himself by his 
miracles in human nature; either because on this day the 
star in heaven gave notice of his birth; or because he turned 
water into wine at the marriage-feast at Cana in Galilee ; or 
because he consecrated water for the reparation of mankind 
by his baptism in the river Jordan; or because with the five 
loaves he fed five thousand men. For each of these contains 
the mysteries and joys of our salvation.” Petrus Chrysolo- 
gus* and Eucherius Lugdunensist mention the three first 
reasons, but not the last. Pope Leo has eight sermons upon 
this festival", in which he insists upon no other reason but the 
manifestation of Christ’s birth to the Wise men, by the appear- 
ance of the star. St. Jerome*, on the other hand, makes it 
to be celebrated chiefly in commemoration of our Saviour’s 
baptism, and the manifestation of him to the world by the 
voice that came from heaven, saying, “Thou art my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And the Greek writers 
commonly insist upon this reason. ‘* Why,” says Chrysos- 
tom’, “is not the day on which Christ was born, called Epi- 


Cana Galilee in convivio nuptiali aquam in vinum convertit ; sive quod in 
Jordanis undis aquas ad reparationem humani generis suo baptismo consecra- 
vit ; sive quod de quinque panibus quinque millia hominum satiavit: in quolibet 
horum salutis nostra mysteria continentur et gaudia. 

5. Chrysol. Serm. clvii. de Epiphania et Magis. (Aug. Vind. 1758. p. 221. 
Maxima B. V. P. vol. vii. p. 964.) Per Epiphaniam Magi Christum Domi- 
num muneribus mysticis confitentur, etc. Per Epiphaniam Christus in nuptiis 
aquas saporavit in vinum, ete. Per Epiphaniam Christus Jordanis undas ad 
baptisma nostrum consecratas intravit, ete. 

τ Eucher. Hom. in Vigil. S. Andreze. (Maxima Bibl. V. P. vol. vi. p. 799.) 
Eadem namque die qua Magi ad Dominum venerunt, eadem tricesimo anno 
incipiente, veniens ad Jordanem baptizatus est. 

4 Leo, Serm. in Epiphan. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. pp. 111—139.) (Max. Bibl. 
V. P. vol. vii. pp. 1004—1011.) 

x Hieron. in Ezech. p. 459. See note (s), p. 70. 

y Chrysostom. Hom. xxiv. de Bapt. Christi. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 369.) 
Τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐχὶ ἡ ἡμέρα καθ᾽ ἣν ἐτέχθη, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἡμέρα καθ᾽ ἣν ἐβαπ- 
τίσθη, ᾿Επιφάνεια λέγεται :. . . ἐπειδὴ οὐχ re ἐτέχθη, τότε πᾶσιν ἐγένετο 
κατάδηλος" ἀλλ᾽ bre ἐβαπτίσατο: μέχρι γὰρ ταύτης ἠγνοεῖτο τῆς ἡμέρας 
τοῖς πολλοῖς" καὶ ὅτι ἠγνόουν αὐτὸν οἱ πολλοὶ, καὶ οὐκ ἤδεισαν ὅστις ποτὲ 
ἣν, ἄκουσον τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου λέγοντος, Μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν, ὃν 
ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε; καὶ τί θαυμαστὸν, εἰ ot ἄλλοι ἠγνόουν, ὕπουγε καὶ αὐτὸς 
ὁ βαπτιστὴς αὐτὸν ἠγνόει ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ; Καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ, φησιν, 
οὐκ ἤδειν αὐτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πέμψας pe βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι, ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, 


5 


Cuar. IV. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 81 


phany, but the day on which he was baptized? Because he 
was not manifested to all when he was born, but when he was 
baptized. For to the day of his baptism he was generally 
unknown: as appears from those words of John the Baptist, 
‘There standeth one among you, whom ye know not.’ And 
what wonder that others should not know him, when the Bap- 
tist himself knew him not before that day. ‘ For I knew him 
not,’ says he, ‘but he that sent me to baptize with water, the 
same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit 
descending and remaining on him, the same is he that bap- 
tizeth with the Holy Ghost.” Gregory Nazianzen assigns the 
same reason for the observation of this festival’: ‘‘ This holy- 
day of lights, to which we are come, and which we this day 
celebrate as a festival, had its original from the baptism of 
Christ, the true Light ‘that lighteth every man that cometh 
into the world.” In like manner, Gregory Nyssen entitles 
his sermon on the baptism of Christ*, εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν 
φώτων, &e., a discourse ‘on the day of lights, on which our 
Lord was baptized.” And Asterius Amasenus, speaking of 
the chief Christian festivals, says, ‘“‘ We celebrate the Nati- 
vity, because at this time God manifested his Divinity to us in 
the flesh. We celebrate the ‘ feast of light, φῶτα πανήγυριν, 
because, by the remission of our sins (in baptism) we are 
brought, as it were, out of the dark prison of our former life, 
to a life of light and virtue.” 


Ἔφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς Πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον, καὶ μένον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ 
βαπτίζων ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. 

2 Nazianz. Orat. xxxix. in Sancta Lumina. (Colon. 1690. tom. i. p. 624, B.) 
(Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 677.) Ἢ ayia τῶν φώτων ἡμέρα, εἰς ἣν ἀφίγμεθα, 
καὶ ἣν ἑορτάζειν ἠξιώμεθα σήμερον, ἀρχὴν piv τὸ τοῦ ἐμοῦ Χριστοῦ βάπ- 
τισμα λαμβάνει, τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ φωτὸς, τοῦ φωτίζοντος πάντα ἄνθρωπον 
ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 

a Nyssen. Orat. de Bapt. Christi. (Paris. 1638. vol. iii, p. 366.) Εἰς τὴν 
ἡμέραν τῶν φώτων, ἐν ἡ ἐβαπτίσθη ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν. 

b Aster. Hom. iv. in Festum Kalendarum. (Combefis. Auctar. tom. i. p. 68, 
Ὁ 4.) Γενέθλια ἑορτάζομεν, ἐπειδὰν τὰ ἐν σαρκὶ θεοφάνια κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν 
χρόνον ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεός φῶτα πανήγυριν ἄγομεν, ἐπειδὰν τῇ τῶν ἁμαρ- 
τημάτων ἀφέσει, οἷον ἐκ σκοτεινοῦ τινος δεσμωτηρίου, τοῦ προτέρου βίου, 
πρὸς τὸν φωτεινὸν καὶ ἀνεύθυνον ἀναγόμεθα. 


ΟΣ \Wal ts G 


82 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


Srecr. VIIL—Why this Day is called by some the Second 
Epiphany, and Dies Luminum, ‘the Day of Lights, 


For baptism being generally called φῶς and φώτισμα, ‘light’ 
and ‘illumination, from the great and admirable effects con- 
sequent to it; this day, being the supposed day of our Saviour’s 
baptism, was thereupon styled ἡμέρα φώτων, or ἅγια φῶτα, 
‘the day of lights, or ‘illumination,’ or ‘baptism.’ As ap- 
pears not only from the forementioned passages of Gregory 
Nazianzen and Nyssen, but several other Greek writers noted 
by Suicerus’, who justly reproves Xylander and Pamelius for 
interpreting this ‘day of lights,’ Candlemas-day, because now 
it is usual, in the Church of Rome, to consecrate their wax 
candles on this day, which is otherwise called ‘the purification 
of the Virgin Mary: whereas there was no such festival in 
use in the Church in the time of Gregory Nazianzen and Nys- 
sen, nor many years after them, until the reign of Justinian, 
when it was first instituted by the Greek Church, under the 
name of ‘Hypapante.’ And, therefore, when Nazianzen?, in 
another place, brings in some giving this reason why they 


© Suicer. Thesaur. Eecles. (tom. ii. p. 1487.) Dies baptismi Christi vocatur 
ἡμέρα THY φώτων a Gregorio Nazianzeno, Orat. xxxix. p. 624. Ἢ ayia, κ. τ. Xr. 
(See note (z), p. 81.) Ipsius orationis titulus est: Eig τὰ ἅγια φῶτα τῶν ἐπι- 
φανίων λόγος. Nicetas ad heec: “ Baptismus ‘luminum’ nomine appellatur, 
quod purget et illustret. Quo etiam fit, ut faces eo tempore in letitize signum 
accendamus. Ac principium quidem et causa hujus festi, baptismus Christi est.’ 
Id satis etiam perspicuum ex titulo Orationis Gregorii Nysseni in Baptismum 
Christi, tom. iii. p. 366. (See note (z), p. 81.) Pantoleon hoc festum vocat 
τὰ ἅγια φῶτα. Typicum: Εἴδησις τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ τῇ Tapapory τῶν ἁγίων 
φώτων. Cedrenus in Romano Leecapeno, p. ὅ09. 'Ρωμανὸς δὲ ταινιωθεὶς τῷ 
βασιλικῷ διαδήματι, στέφει κατ᾿ αὐτὴν τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν ἁγίων φώτων καὶ 
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σύζυγον Θεοδώραν. Xylander in notis ad hune locum: ‘ Diem 
sacrorum luminum puto esse, quem alias purificationis Marie vocant, Licht- 
mess.’ Pamelius, in Ep. xxxiv. Cypriani, n. xiii. p. 65. ‘ Festum etiam, quod 
hodie Purificationis, olim, teste Beda, ὑπαπαντὴ dicebatur, celebrat Homilia 
de Luminibus sive secundis Epiphaniis D. Gregorius Nazianzenus.’ Eadem 
aliorum etiam est sententia. Sed nihil minus. Purificatio enim Virginis, Greecis 
ὑπαντὴ sive ὑπαπαντὴ, secundo Februarii die celebratur: baptismi vero 
Christi festum, sexto Januarii, tam apud Grzecos quam Latinos celebratur, ete. 

ἃ Nazian. Orat. xl. de Bapt. (Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 709, C 3.) Τὸ, καὶ τὸ 
σκήπτῃ, καὶ προφασίζῃ προφάσεις ἐν ἁμαρτίαις" μένω τὰ φῶτα, TO πάσχα 
μοι τιμιώτερον, τὴν πεντηκοστὴν ἐκδέξομαι. 


Cuar. 1V. ὃ 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 83 


deferred their baptism ; one saying, μένω τὰ φῶτα, ‘I stay till 
the feast of lights come ;’ another, “ He had a greater respect 
for Easter ;” and a third, “ That he had waited till the time 
of Pentecost ;” it is plain, ‘the feast of lights’ cannot signify 
the purification of the Virgin Mary (which was no solemn 
time of baptism), but Epiphany, on which the Greek Church 
allowed persons to be baptized, as one of the three solemn 
times of baptism, and that in regard to our Saviour’s baptism 
(which they called his ‘second Nativity, or ‘second Epi- 
phany®’), when his Divinity was more clearly manifested by 
the voice which came from heaven, saying, ‘‘ Thou art my 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 


Secr. VIII.—Celebrated as all other great Festivals, and in one 
respect more Noted, as being in the Greek Church one of the 
three solemn Times of Baptism. 


So that we may observe, that in the Greek Church, in one 
respect, it was more taken notice of than even the Nativity 
itself ; being allowed as one of the three solemn times of bap- 
tism, which the Nativity was not. In the Latin Church, 
indeed, it wanted this privilege. For, as I have shown else- 
where‘, the Roman, French, and Spanish Churches, for many 
ages, would allow of no other solemn times of baptism but 
only Easter and Pentecost, except in case of sickness and 
extremity. But the Greek and African Churches made Epi- 
phany also a day of baptism, as appears not only out of the 
forementioned place of Nazianzen, but Victor [Vitensis] Uti- 
censis’, and Joannes Moschus*, and the ancient ritual, called 
‘Typicum Sab.” To which we may add what Chrysostom 


e Coteler. Not. in Constit. lib. v. 6. xiii. (vol. ii. p. 315.) Epiphania divisa 
fuit in primam et secundam. ‘ Due sunt autem Epiphanie,’ ait Isidorus, Ori- 
ginum vi. 18, ‘ prima, in qua natus Christus pastoribus Hebrzeorum angelo 
nuntiante apparuit: secunda, in qua ex gentium populis stella indice preesepis 
cunabula Magos adoraturos exhibuit.’ So Ruffin entitles Nazianzen’s 39th 
oration, ‘de Secundis Epiphaniis ;’ [in codice Divionensi, quem ad Vigilium 
Tapsensem Jaudat Chiffletius, ete. Grischov.] 

f Book xi. ch. vi. sect. vii. vol. 11. p. 514. 

& Vict. de Persecut. Vandal. lib. ii. (Maxima Bibl. V. P. vol. viii. p. 679.) 

h Mosch, Prat. Spirituale, c. eexiv. See vol. iii. p. 520. note (u). 

Ξ 


84 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX_ 


says', “That in this solemnity, in memory of our Saviour’s 
baptism, by which he sanctified the nature of water, they were 
used, at midnight, to carry home water from the church, and 
lay it up, where it would remain as fresh and uncorrupt for 
one, two, or three years, as if it were immediately drawn out 
of any fountain.” And Fronto Duczeus! observes the like 
custom in the Syriac Kalendar, published by Genebrard, upon 
this very day: which argues it to be a peculiar rite of the 
Kastern Church. As to other things, the observation of this 
day was after the same manner as that of the Nativity and 
other great festivals. For they had sermons and the com- 
munion on this day; and servants had liberty to rest from 
their bodily labour, to attend the religious service of the day. 
In regard to which usage, the author of the Constitutions 
gives this direction®: ‘ Let servants rest from their labour on 
Epiphany, because on that day the Divinity of Christ was 
declared, when the Father gave testimony to him at his bap- 
tism, and the Holy Ghost, in the shape of a dove, showed him 
to those that stood by, and heard the testimony that was given 
him.” And though at first this day was not exempt from 
juridical acts and prosecutions at law; nor were the public 
games and shows forbidden, for some time, to be exhibited 
thereon ; yet at length, Theodosius Junior gave it an honour- 
able place among those days on which the public games should 
not be allowed!; ‘ Forasmuch as men ought to put a distine- 

i Chrysost. Hom. xxiv. de Bapt. Christi. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 569, D 8.) 
Διά τοι τοῦτο καὶ μεσονυκτίῳ κατὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην ἅπαντες ὑδρευσάμε- 
νοι οἴκαδε τὰ νάματα ἀποτίθενται, καὶ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ὁλόκληρον φυλάττουσιν, 
ἅτε δὴ σήμερον ἁγιασθέντων τῶν ὑδάτων" καὶ τὸ σημεῖον γίνεται ἐναργὲς, 
οὐ διαφθειρομένης τῆς τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκείνων φύσεως τῷ μήκει τοῦ χρόνου, 
ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ὁλόκληρον καὶ δύο καὶ τρία πολλάκις ἔτη τοῦ σήμερον 
ἀνπληθέντος ἀκεραίου καὶ νεαροῦ μένοντος, καὶ μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον τοῖς 
ἄρτι τῶν πηγῶν ἐξαρπασθεῖσιν ὕδασιν ἁμιλλωμένου. 

} Fronto Due. in loc. Nota veterem Christianorum morem, cujus vestigium 
etiamnum restat in Kalendario Syrorum apud Genebrardum vi. Januarii, ‘ Ea 
nocte,’ inquit, ‘aqua consecratur in totum annum.’ 

Κ᾿ Constitut. lib. viii. 6. xxxiii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 498, E 6.) Τὴν τῶν ἐπιφα- 
viwy ἑορτὴν ἀργείτωσαν [ot δοῦλοι] διὰ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ ἀνάδειξιν γεγενῆσθαι 
τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεότητος, μαρτυρήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐν τῷ βαπτίσ- 
ματι, καὶ τοῦ Παρακλήτου ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς ὑποδείξαντος τοῖς παρεστῶσι 
τὸν μαρτυρηθέντα. 

' Cod. Theod. See before, chap. ii. sect. iv. note (y). 


Cuap. IV. ὃ 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 85 


tion between days of supplication and days of pleasure.” And 
Justinian™, reciting one of the laws of Theodosius the Great, 
makes both the Nativity and Epiphany days of vacation from 
all pleadings at law, as well as from popular pleasures. And 
so it is in the laws of the Visigoths", published out of the 
body of the Roman laws by Reciswindus and other Gothic 
kings, and the old Gothic interpreter of the laws in the Theo- 
dosian Code®. From whence we may conclude, that this was 
become the standing rule and custom throughout both the 
Roman and the Visigoth dominions, to keep this festival of 
Epiphany with great veneration; neither allowing the courts 
to be open on this day for law, nor the theatre for pleasure. 


Secr. IX.—WNotice usually given on Epiphany concerning the 
Time of Easter in the ensuing Year. 


I have but one thing more to note, as it were, by the way, 
concerning this day: that they, to whom the care of the 
Paschal eycle, or rule for finding out Easter, was committed, 
were obliged, on or about the time of Epiphany, to give notice 
what time Easter, and Lent, and all the movable solemnities 
were to be kept the ensuing year. The letters sent from the 
metropolitan to the provincial bishops, upon this occasion, are 
commonly called ‘ epistole Paschales’ and ‘ heortasticie,’ * Pas- 
chal’ and ‘festival epistles; which are usually a short dis- 
course upon some useful and important subject, closed with an 
intimation or notice of the day when Lent should begin, and 
of Easter-day, and Whitsunday. As those three Paschal 
epistles of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, which were trans- 
lated by St. Jerome, and are now among St. Jerome’s works, 


m Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. vii. (Amstel. 1663. p. 89.) Dies 
etiam Natalis atque Epiphaniarum Christi, et quo tempore commemoratio 
Apostolieze passionis, totius Christianitatis magistree, a cunctis jure celebratur: 
in quibus etiam preedictis sanctissimis diebus neque spectaculorum copiam 
reseramus. 

n Leges Visigoth. lib. ii. tit. i. leg. xi. (quoted by Gothofred. Cod. Theod. 
lib. 11. tit. viii. p. 124.) 

© Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, in Interpretat. leg. ii. (Lugdun. 1669. 
vol. i. p. 121.) Nee non et dies natalis Domini nostri, vel Epiphaniz, sine forensi 
strepitu volumus celebrari. 


86 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


and in the ‘ Bibliotheca Patrum?.’ Concerning which, and the 
rest of the same kind, Cassian says‘, “Τὸ was an ancient cus- 
tom in Egypt, for the bishop of Alexandria, as soon as Epi- 
phany was past, to send his circular letters to all the churches 
and monasteries of Egypt, to signify to them the beginning of 
Lent and Easter-day.” And there are some such" of Diony- 
sius, Athanasius, and Cyril, and Pope Innocent, and Leo’; 
and some orders of council‘, that the primates of provinces 
should send their circular letters to give timely notice of these 
things to the several churches under their jurisdiction. Par- 
ticularly the fourth Council of Orleans, speaking of the time 
of keeping Easter uniformly by the Paschal ‘laterculus,’ or 
‘table,’ made by Victorius (Victor they call him), say", ““ The 

P Bibl. Patr. tom. iii. p. 79. (tom. v. p. 843. Lugd. 1677.) 

4 Cassian. Collat. x. (Atrebat. 1628. p. 532.) Intra Aigypti regionem mos 
iste antiqua traditione servatur, ut peracto Epiphaniorum die . . . epistolee pon- 
tificis Alexandrini per universas dirigantur ecclesias, quibus initium quadra- 
gesimze et dies Paschze non solum per civitates, sed etiam per universa monas- 
teria significentur. Sozom. lib. vill. 6. xi. (Reading, p. 340, 14.) (Vales. 
1693. p. 624, A 5.) Kai Θεόφιλος δὲ ταύτης ἔχεσθαι τῆς δόξης, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ 
παρεκελεύσατο, καὶ ἐν ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν ἐξ ἔθους περὶ τῆς Πασχαλίας ἑορτῆς 
ἔγραφε, καὶ ἀσώματον χρῆναι νοεῖν τὸν Θεὸν εἰσηγεῖτο, καὶ ἀνθρώπου σχή- 
ματος ἀλλότριον. 

x Innocent. Epist. xi. de Ratione Paschali. (Labbe, vol. ii. Cone. p. 1264.) 
——-Dionys. ap. Euseb. lib. vii. ὁ. xx. (Reading, p. 344.) 








Athanas. Epist. 


S Leo, Epist. xev. ad Episcopos Gallos. (Labbe, vol. iii. p. 1419.) 

t Cone. Arelat. I. ὁ. i. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1427.) Primo loco de observatione 
Paschze Dominicze, ut uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem a nobis obser- 
vetur, et juxta consuetudinem litteras ad omnes tu dirigas. Cone. Carth. IIT. 
ὁ. i, (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1167.) Placuit in principio propter errorem, qui seepe 
solet oboriri, ut omnes Africanze provincize episcopi observationem Paschalem 
ab ecclesia Carthaginensi curent accipere. —— Can. xli. Adjicimus, de die 
Pasche nobis esse mandatum, ut de ecclesia semper Carthaginensi instruamur, 
et non sub angusto temporis spatio. Cone. Carth. V. "6. vii. (Labbe, vol. ii. 
p. 1216.) Placuit, ut dies venerabilis Paschze formatarum subscriptione omni- 
bus intimetur. 

ἃ Cone. Aurelian. IV. ¢. i. (Labbe, vol. y. p. 381.) Placuit, ut sanctum Pascha 
secundum latereulum Victorii ab omnibus sacerdotibus uno tempore celebretur. 
Quee festivitas annis singulis ab episeopo Epiphaniorum die in ecclesia populis 
denuntietur. De qua sollemnitate quoties aliquid dubitatur, inquisita vel agnita 
per metropolitanos a sede apostolica sacra constitutio teneatur. Cone. Antis- 
siodor. 6. 11. (p. 957.) Ut omnes presbyteri ante Epiphaniam missos suos diri- 
gant, qui eis de principio quadragesimee nuntient, et in ipsa Epiphania ad popu- 
hum indicent. 











Cuap. V. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 87 


bishops of France shall, every year, on the day of Epiphany, 
give notice of the time when the festival is to be kept in their 
churches. And if any doubt arise about the time, they shall 
have recourse to their metropolitan, and he to the apostolical 
see, for resolution.” And this leads us to the consideration of 
the next great festival, which was that of Easter. 





CHAPTER V. 
OF EASTER, OR THE PASCHAL FESTIVAL, 


Secr. 1.—The Paschal Solemnity anciently reckoned Fifteen 
Days, the whole Week before, and the Week after Easter 
Sunday. ᾿ 


In speaking of the Paschal solemnity, I shall here only con- 
sider that part of it which was properly festival. For we are 
to know, the ancients commonly included fifteen days in the 
whole solemnity of the Pasch, that is, the week before Haster 
Sunday, and the week following it: the one of which was 
called Pascha σταυρώσιμον, ‘the Pasch of the cross ;’ and the 
other Pascha ἀναστάσιμον, ‘the Pasch of the Resurrection.’ 
Suicerus will furnish the learned reader with examples of both ?. 
The general name Pascha, which is of Hebrew extract from 
Pesach, which signifies ‘the Passover,’ will comprise both. 
For the Christian Passover includes as well the Passion as 
the Resurrection of our Saviour, who is the true Paschal 
Lamb, or Passover, that was sacrificed for us. And, there- 
fore, though our English word, ‘ Easter,’ be generally used 
only to signify the Resurrection, yet the ancient word Pascha, 
was taken in a larger sense, to denote as well the Pasch of the 
Crucifixion, as the Pasch of the Resurrection. And, for this 
reason, the ancients commonly speak of the Pasch as contain- 
ing fifteen days in its solemnity, including the Passion-week, 
together with that of the Resurrection. Thus, in one of the 


@ Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. tom, i. p. 304. et tom. ii. p. 1014, 


88 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


laws of Theodosius’, where he decrees what days shall be 
days of vacation from all business of the law, he reckons into 
the number of them the holy days of the Pasch: seven going 
before, and seven following after. And Gothofred, in his 
learned commentary upon the place, says, both Papianus°, in 
his body of laws, collected by him out of the Roman, for the 
use of the Burgundians; and Anianus, in his collection for 
the use of the Visigoths‘*, keep to the same phrase of fifteen 
Paschal days. ΤῸ which we find also a plain reference made 
by St. Austin δ, in a sermon preached by him on the Dominica 
im Albis, or Sunday following Easter-day, wherein he thus 
addresses himself to his audience :—‘‘ The days of vacation are 
now over; and those of convening, exactions, and lawsuits, 
succeed in their room. ‘Take care, my brethren, how ye spend 
these days. From the vacation of the foregoing days, ye 
ought to learn meekness, not to meditate subtle devices: for 
some men rest on those days only to plot wickedness, which 
they may practise when the festival days are over. We desire 
you may so live, as they that are to give account to God, not 
only of those fifteen days, but of their whole life.” And 
Scaliger mentions a law of Constantine‘, wherein the Paschal 
weeks, the one before, the other after the Pasch, are ordered 
to be days of vacation from all proceedings at law. But 
because the former of these Paschal weeks belongs to the Lent 
fast, we will consider it under that head ; and here only speak 
of the Paschal solemnity, as it was properly festival. 


> Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 121.) 
Sanctos quoque Paschie dies, qui septeno vel preecedunt numero, vel sequuntur, 
in eadem observatione numeramus. 

¢ Papian. Lib. Responsor. tit. xii. Paschalibus etiam quindecim diebus. 

ἃ Leg. Visigoth. lib. ii. tit. i. leg. xi. 

© Aug. Serm. xix. ex editis a Sirmondo. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. p. 741, C.) 
Peracti sunt dies feriati: succedent jam illi conventionum, exactionum, litigi- 
orum: videte quomodo in his vivatis, Fratres mei. De vacatione dierum 
istorum mansuetudinem debetis concipere, non jurgiorum consilia meditari. 
Sunt enim homines, qui propterea vacaverunt per dies istos, ut cogitarent 
malitias, quas exercerent post dies istos. Petimus vos, ut ita vivatis, tamquam 
qui Deo rationem reddituros vos sciatis de tota vita, non de solis istis quindecim 
diebus. 

f Sealiger. de Emendat. Tempor. (p. 776.) Τὰς πασχαλίας δύο ἑβδομάδας 
ἀπράκτους τελεῖν" THY TE πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα Kai THY μετ᾽ αὐτό. 


Cuap. V. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 89 


Sect. I1.—Great Disputes in the Church concerning this Festival, 
some observing it on a fixed Day every Year. 


Now, concerning this, there were anciently very great dis- 
putes in the Church: though all agreed in the observation of 
it in general, yet they differed very much as to the particular 
time when it was to be observed ; some keeping it precisely 
on the same stated day every year; others on the fourteenth 
day of the first moon in the new year, whatever day of the 
week that happened to fall upon; others deferring it to the 
first Sunday after the first full moon ; and those often differing 
in the Sunday, on which they celebrated it, by the difference 
and variety of their calculations. Epiphanius says*, “‘ Some 
of the Quartadecimans in Cappadocia always kept their Pasch 
on the eighth of the Kalends of April, that is, the twenty-fifth 
of March, pretending certain information from the Acts of 
Pilate, that that was the day of our Saviour’s passion; yet 
other copies of those Acts said the sixteenth of the Kalends of 
April; that is, the seventeenth of March.” The Christians of 
Gaul also, till the time of Pope Victor, if Bede may be cre- 
dited", kept their Pasch always on the eighth of the Kalends 
of April, that is, the twenty-fifth of March, taking that to 
have been the day of our Saviour’s resurrection. Bede cites 
the authority of Theophilus, bishop of Czesarea, and the synod 
held under him for this. But considering that Irenzeus, bishop 
of Lyons, who lived in the time of Pope Victor, says no such 
thing of the French Churches, but the contrary, that they 
fixed their Easter to no certain day, but kept it as other 
Western Churches did, on the Sunday following the fourteenth 


g Epiphan. Heres. 1. Quartadeciman. n. i. (Colon. 1082. vol. i. p. 420, A.) 
eo δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν τὴν αὐτὴν μίαν ἡμέραν ἄγοντες, Kai τὴν αὐτὴν μίαν 
ἡμέραν νηστεύοντες, καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐπιτελοῦντες, ἀπὸ τῶν ἄκτων δῆθεν 
Πιλάτου αὐχοῦσι τὴν ἀκρίβειαν εὑρηκέναι, ἐν οἷς ἐμφέρεται, τῇ πρὸ ὀκτὼ 
καλανδῶν ᾿Απριλλίων τὸν Σωτῆρα πεπονθέναι: καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 
βούλονται ἄγειν τὸ πάσχα, ὑποίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν ἐμπέ soy ἡ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη τῆς 
σελήνης. ... ἔτι δὲ εὕρομεν ἀντίγραφα ἐκ τῶν Πιλάτου, ἐν οἷς σημαίνει πρὸ 
δεκαπέντε eenapday ᾿Απριλλίων τὸ πάθος γεγενῆσθαι. 

h Bed. de Ratione ‘'emporum, 6. xly. Galli, etc. See page 73, note (d). 

1 


90 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX 


day of the moon; it is more likely that Bede was imposed 
upon by some spurious epistle of Theophilus, and false act of 
his synod, which charged the Gallican Churches with what they 
were not really guilty of. 


Secr. I1].—Others observing it, with the Jews, on the fourteenth 
Day of the Moon, whatever Day of the Week that happened 
upon. 


However, we are sure, that in the second century there 
happened a great dispute between the Asiatic Churches and 
the rest of the world concerning this day. Pope Pius, who 
lived about the year 147, had made a decree, that the annual 
solemnity of the Pasch should be kept only on the Lord’s- 
day ; and in confirmation of this he pretended, that Hermas, 
his brother, who was then an eminent teacher among them, 
had received instruction from an angel’, who commanded that 
all men should keep the Pasch on the Lord’s-day. Yet, not- 
withstanding this, the Asiatics kept to their ancient custom ; 
and Polyearp, bishop of Smyrna, came to Rome to confer with 
Anicetus upon it. They could come to no agreement upon 
the time: “for Anicetus could not persuade Polycarpi to 
alter a custom which he had observed with St. John the 
apostle, and the rest of the apostles of the Lord, with whom 
he had lived, and familiarly conversed. Neither could Polycarp 
persuade Anicetus to recede from a custom, which he had 
received from the elders that were before him. Yet they con- 
tinued to communicate with each other, and Anicetus did 
Polycarp the honour to let him consecrate the eucharist in 


i Pii Ep. i. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 562, A 2.) Hermze angelus Domini in habitu 
pastoris apparuit, et praecepit ei, ut Pascha die Dominico ab omnibus cele- 
braretur. 

j Iren, Epist. ad Victor. Euseb. lib. v. ο. xxiv. (Reading, 1720. p. 249, 5.) 
(Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 157, A. 12.) Οὔτε γὰρ ὁ ᾿Ανίκητος τὸν Πολύκαρ- 
Tov πεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ τηρεῖν, ἅτε μετὰ ᾿Ιωάννου, τοῦ μαθητοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀποστόλων, οἷς συνδιέτριψεν, ἀεὶ τετηρηκότα' οὔτε 
μὲν ὁ Πολύκαρπος τὸν ᾿Ανίκητον ἔπεισε τηρεῖν, λέγοντα τὴν συνήθειαν τῶν 
πρὸ αὐτοῦ πρεσβυτέρων ὀφείλειν κατέχειν: καὶ τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων, 
ἐκοινώνησαν ἑαυτοῖς" καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ παρεχώρησεν ὁ ᾿Ανίκητος τὴν εὐ- 
χαριστίαν τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ κατ᾽ ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι, καὶ μετ᾽ εἰρήνης ἀπ᾽ 
ἀλλήλων ἀπηλλάγησαν. 


Cuap. V. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ΟἹ 


his Church : and so they parted from each other in peace ; all 
Churches, as well those that observed it on the Lord’s-day 
as those that did not, still agreeing to preserve Christian peace 
and communion one with another.” 

Not long after the death of Polycarp, the controversy was 
revived again at Laodicea, upon which Melito, bishop of Sardis, 
wrote his two books, De Paschate, wherein he defended the 
opinion of the Asiatics, as is evident from the testimony and 
character which, not long after, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, 
gives of him. For when the dispute was set on foot again by 
the fierceness of Pope Victor, Polycrates wrote to him, and 
told him *, ‘“ they observed the Pasch on the fourteenth day 
of the moon, as it had been kept and handed down to them 
by St. Philip the apostle, who died at Hierapolis; and St. 
John the apostle, who died at Ephesus ; by Polycarp, bishop 
of Smyrna; by Thraseas the martyr, bishop of Eumenia ; by 
Sagaris the martyr, bishop of Laodicea; by Papirius; and 
Melito, bishop of Sardis; and many others, whose custom was 
to celebrate the Pasch on the same day that the Jews were 
wont to put away their leaven.” ‘This did not satisfy Pope 
Victor: but he, in a great paroxysm of intemperate zeal, im- 
mediately excommunicated all the Asiatic Churches, and sent 
his circular letters to all Churches that were of his opinion, 
that they should hold no communion with them. But this 
rash and bold act of his was ill resented by all wise and sober 
men of his own party, several of whom wrote sharply to him, 
advising him rather to take such measures and resolutions as 
were proper to preserve charity, unity, and peace, among the 
Churches. Particularly Irenzeus! (whose nature, by what the 
Greeks call pheronymy, corresponded to his name, being of an 
irenical, or pacific temper) wrote to him in the name of the 


k Polyerates, Epist. ap. Euseb. ibid. p. 243. 

! Tren, ap. Euseb. (Reading, ibid. p. 246.) Οὐδὲ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας 
ἐστὶν ἡ ἀμφισβήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ TOV εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας" οἱ μὲν 
γὰρ οἴονται μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν" οἱ δὲ δύο" οἱ δὲ καὶ πλείονας" 
οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν 
ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων, οὐ νῦν ἐφ᾽ 
ἡμῶν γεγονυῖα, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν"... Καὶ οὐδὲν 
ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε, καὶ εἰρηνεύομεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους" καὶ ἡ 
διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι. 


6 


92 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Church of Gaul, and in a decent manner admonished him not 
to excommunicate whole Churches of God for observing an 
ancient custom which they had received by tradition from their 
ancestors: “ Forasmuch as that there had been disputes of 
old in the Church, not only about the day, but about the man- 
ner of the fast preceding it: some fasting one, some two, some 
more days; yet all these kept peace one with another, as we 
now do, and the difference in the manner of fasting only com- 
mended their unanimity in the faith.” He added, “That 
Polycarp and Anicetus, though they could not agree upon the 
point, yet parted friends, and continued to communicate with 
each other, notwithstanding this difference,” as has been re- 
lated before. Athanasius also tells us further™, that the 
Churches of Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, were in the same 
sentiments with the Asiatic Churches in his time: though it 
is a dispute between Bishop Ussher" and Valesius °, whether 


m Athanas. Epist. ad Africanos. (Colon. 1686. tom. i. p. 933, B.) (Paris. 
1698. p. 892.) Οἱ κατὰ Συρίαν, καὶ Κιλικίαν, καὶ Μεσοποταμίαν διεφώνουν 
πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ τῷ καιρῷ, ἐν ᾧ ποιοῦσιν οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ἐποίουν καὶ αὐτοί. 
Id. de Synodis Arimin. et Seleuc. (Bened. Ῥαΐαν. 1787. vol. i. p. 574, E 5.) Οἱ 
μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς Συρίας, καὶ Κιλικίας, καὶ Μεσοποταμίας ἐχώλευον περὶ 





τὴν ἑορτὴν, καὶ μετὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐποίουν τὸ πάσχα. 

» Usser. de Epistolis Ignat. ¢. ix. (Coteler. vol. ii. p. 204.) Admisso ab 
omnibus communiter Judaico isto caleulo; alii Pascha σταυρώσιμον die primo 
azymorum, in quameumque septimanze feriam ille incidisset, lugendo et jeju- 
nando observabant; eoque transacto jejunium solyebant (ut ex Chrysostomi 
oratione intelligimus, adversus eos habita, qui primo Pascha jejunabant) : alii 
jejunium usque ad proximam Dominicam continuantes, in ea Pascha ἀναστάσι- 
μον cum gaudio et festivitate celebrabant. Prior consuetudo, in ecclesiis non 
solum Asie proprie dictee, (quod ex controversia, cum eis hae de re a Victore 
Romano episcopo habita, notum est,) sed etiam Syriz, Mesopotamiee, et Cilicize 
(ut ex Athanasii Libro de Synodis, et Epistola ad Africanos, colligitur) obtinuit: 
posterior in Romana, Alexandrina, et aliis eeclesiis est recepta, ete. 

© Vales. in Euseb. lib. ν. ¢. xxiii. (Reading, 1720. p. 242.) Jacobus Usserius 
in Prolegomenis ad Ignatii Epistolas, c. ix. scribit, Asianos, qui primo azymo- 
rum die cum Judzis Pascha celebrabant, eum diem cum luctu ae jejunio trans- 
egisse, eoque demum transacto jejunium quadragesimale solvisse. Verum huic 
sententiz refragatur Eusebius, qui diserte adfirmat Asianos die xiv. primi 
mensis, quamvis non esset Dominica, finem statuisse quadragesime. Quod 
vero Usserius adfert Chrysostomi testimonium, meo quidem judicio ejus sen- 
tentiam nihil adjuvat. Nam Chrysostomus in Oratione illa ‘adversus eos qui 
Pascha jejunant,’ invehitur adversus quosdam Quartadecimanos, qui xiv. lunge 
cum Judzis Pascha celebrabant, eoque die jejunabant ae mysteria celebrabant ; 


Cua. V. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 93 


they were so originally; for Valesius will not allow that they 
were so in the time of Pope Victor. However, we see there 
were many great and famous Churches which kept their Pasch 
on the fourteenth day of the moon, with the Jews, and that as 
a custom received by tradition from St. Philip and St. John 
the apostles. Neither were they induced by the menaces of 
Pope Victor to alter their custom, but continued it to the 
time of the Council of Nice (an. 324). About which time 
Constantine being very desirous to compose this difference in 
the Church, sent Osius, bishop of Corduba, first into the 
East, as Sozomen relates ?, to try if he could bring the dissent- 
ing party to a unanimity with the rest of their brethren. But, 
failing of his design, he afterwards proposed the matter to the 
Council of Nice, where a decree was made, that the holy feast 
of the Pasch should be kept on one and the same day by all ; 
as appears from one of Constantine’s epistles to the bishops 
who came not to the synod, which is recorded by all the histo- 
rians4. Not long after this, the Council of Antioch (an. 341) 
made a more peremptory decree, that all who presumed to dis- 
annul the determination made by the holy and great Council 
of Nice, concerning the Paschal festival, should be excommu- 
nicated, and cast out of the Church, if they persisted conten- 
tiously to oppose what was there decreed*. The like canons 


id enim proprium erat Quartadecimanorum, ut in eorum heeresi tradit Epipha- 
nius. Verum priscos Asianos ita fecisse, nee Chrysostomus, nec alius quisquam 
dixit. 

P Sozom. lib. i. ὁ. xvi. (Reading, 1720. p. 34, 22.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. 
p- 350, B 5.) Νομίσας τε δύνασθαι προκαταλαβεῖν τὸ κακὸν, πρὶν εἰς 
πλείους χωρῆσαι, πέμπει ἄνδρα τὸν ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὸν πίστει καὶ βίῳ ἐπίσημον, 
καὶ ταῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δόγματος ὁμολογίαις ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις εὐδοκιμη- 
Kora, διαλλάξοντα τοὺς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ διὰ τὸ δόγμα στασιάζοντας, καὶ τοὺς 
πρὸς ἕω περὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν διαφερομένους" ἦν δὲ οὗτος Ὅσιος ὁ Κορδούβης 
ἐπίσκοπος. 

4 Theodoret. lib. i. ο. x. (Reading, p. 34.)——Soerat. lib. i. 6. ix. (p. 26.) 
Sozom. lib. i. ¢. xxi. (p. 39.) Euseb. de Vita Constantini, lib. iii. ¢. xiv. 
(p. 585.) 

tr Cone. Antioch. ο. i. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 561.) Πάντας τοὺς τολμῶντας 
Tapadve τὸν ὕρον τῆς ἁγίας Kai μεγάλης συνόδου, τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συγκρο- 
τηθείσης ἐπὶ παρουσίᾳ τῆς εὐσεβείας τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου βασιλέως Κωνσταν- 
τίνου, περὶ τῆς ἁγίας ἑορτῆς τοῦ σωτηριώδους πάσχα, ἀκοινωνήτους καὶ 








ἀποβλήτους εἶναι τῆς ἐκκλησίας, εἰ ἐπιμένοιεν φιλονεικότερον ἐνιστάμενοι 
πρὸς τὰ καλῶς δεδογμένα. 


94 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


had been made several times before, but none so peremptory 
as this. Eusebius mentions abundance of synods in the time 
of Pope Victor’, which determined with him that the resur- 
rection Pasch ought only to be kept on the Lord’s-day ; but 
they did not excommunicate any one that opposed them, but 
rather, as Sozomen relates ', mutually tolerated one another in 
their different observations. The first Council of Arles, like- 
wise ", before the Council of Nice (an. 314), had given in 
charge, that the Pasch of the Lord’s resurrection should be 
observed uno die et tempore per omnem orbem, ‘at one time, 
and one and the same day, throughout all the world’ But 
they added no such penalty of excommunication, to be inflicted 
on those that observed the contrary custom. The only rule 
which pressed the observation with severity, was one of the 
Apostolical Canons *, supposed to be made by some Eastern 
council about the time of Pope Victor, which says, “If any 
presbyter or deacon keep the day of the holy Pasch, before 
the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.” But 
this, at most, only affected the clergy. But when the great 
Council of Nice had once undertaken to determine this matter, 
such a deference was thought proper to be paid to her decree, 
as that it was reputed a schismatical act, and worthy of eccle- 
siastical censure, for any one to oppose it. And, therefore, 
from this time the opposers of the decree are commonly cen- 


5. Euseb. lib. v. ¢. xxiii. (Vales. 1695. p. 154, Ὁ 8.) (Reading, 1720. p. 242, 
11.) Σύνοδοι καὶ συγκροτήσεις ἐπισκόπων ἐπὶ τ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐγίνοντο; πάντες τε 
ὙΚΘΟΤήσεις Y 
ud γνώμῃ Ov ἐπιστολῶν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν δόγμα τοῖς πανταγόσε διετυποῦντο 
u ? YI ς χ ? 
ὡς ἂν μὴ δ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῃ ποτὲ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς ἐκ VEKOOY ἀναστάσεως 
ἐπιτελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου μυστήριον. 

Ὁ Sozom. lib. vii. ὁ. xix. (ibid. p. 595, D 2.) (Reading, p. 306, 25.) ᾿Επεὶ ot 

A ΄ «ε ~ > » - , ‘ γ Ε cd > 
πρὸς δύσιν ἱερεῖς οὐκ ᾧοντο δεῖν Παύλου καὶ Πέτρου τὴν παράδοσιν ἀτι- 

re 0 7 ρ 
; aie SS ι ὃ is = δ ; 
ἄζειν" οἱ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, Ἰωάννῃ τῷ εὐαγγελιστῇ ἀκολουθεῖν ἰσχυρίζον- 
ῃ τῷ εὐαγγελιστί χυρ 
το τοῦτο κοινῇ δόξαν, ἕκαστοι ὡς εἰώθεσαν ἑορτάζοντες, τῆς πρὸς σφᾶς 
κοινωνίας οὐκ ἐχωρίσθησαν" εὔηθες γὰρ καὶ μάλα δικαίως ὑπέλαβον, ἐθῶν 
ἕνεκεν ἀλλήλων χωρίζεσθαι, περὶ τὰ καίρια τῆς θρησκείας συμφωνοῦντες. 

4 Cone. Arelat. ¢. i. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1427.) Primo loco de observatione 
Paschze Dominici, ut uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem a nobis obser- 
vetur, et juxta consuetudinem litteras ad omnes tu dirigas. 

x Can. Apost. ὁ. vii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 25.) Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτε- 
ρος, ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ πάσχα ἡμέραν πρὸ τῆς ἑαρινῆς ἰσημερίας 
μετὰ Ιουδαίων ἐπιτελέσει, καθαιρείσθω. 


πάρ: V. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 95 


sured, either as heretics or schismatics, as may be seen in the 
Canons of Laodicea ¥, and the first Council of Constantinople 2, 
and the accounts which St. Austin® and Epiphanius give of 
the ancient heretics, where they are condemned under the 
names of Quartadecimani, and ‘Tessaresczedecatitee, and 
Audiani, with a particular reason given for their condemna- 
tion. For St. Austin notes out of Epiphanius, that the 
Audians were condemned not so much for their opinion in this 
point, as for their pervicaciousness in making a disturbance 
and schism in the Church upon it. For they would not hold 
any communion with their own bishops», nor with any that 
did not keep the Pasch at the same time that the Jews did. 
Epiphanius gives a large account of them, and says*, ‘‘ They 
railed at the Council of Nice for introducing a new custom, in 
compliance with Constantine’s humour, and made a separation 
in the Church; upon which Constantine banished Audius, 
their leader, into Gothia or Scythia, because he drew many 
away from the Church into a separate communion. The case 
was now very difierent from what it was in the time of Pope 
Anicetus and Victor, when Polycarp and Polycrates kept 
their Pasch at a different time from the rest of the world, but 
still made no division in the Church, but lived in peace and 
communion with those that differed from them. And this, no 


Y Cone. Laodiec. 6. vii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1497.) Περὶ τοῦ, τοὺς ἐκ τῶν αἱρέ- 
σεων, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, Ναυατιανῶν, ἤτοι Φωτεινιανῶν. ἢ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατιτῶν, 
ἐπιστρεφομένους, κ. τ. Xr. 

z Cone. Constantinop. I. 6. vii. ᾿Αρειανοὺς μὲν καὶ Μακεδονιανοὺς . .. καὶ 
τοὺς Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατίτας, κ. τ. X. 

a Aug. Heeres. xix. et 1. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 1, ete.) Epiphan. 
Heeres. 1. Quartadeciman. (Colon. 1682. p. 30.) Et Heeres. Ixx. Audianos. (p. 812.) 

b Tbid. de Heeres. ο. 1. Eos autem separasse se, dicit Epiphanius, a commu- 





nione nostra, culpando episcopos divites, et Pascha cum Judzeis celebrando,. 
(p. 14.) 

¢ Epiphan. Heres. Ixx. n. ix. (Paris. 1622. vol. i. p. 821, A 2.) “Awd Kwy- 
σταντί[ν]ου διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα φησὶ προσωποληψίαν καταλελοίπατε 
τὴν τῶν πατέρων περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ἑορτῆς ἀκολουθίαν, καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν 





μετηλλάξατε εἰς τὸ καθῆκον τοῦ βασιλέως. Id. n. xiv. p. 827. Ὑπέστη δὲ 


καὶ ἐξορίαν αὐτὸς ὁ γέρων Αὔδιος εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Σκυθίας, ὑπὸ τοῦ βασι- 





λέως ἐξορισθεὶς διὰ τὸ ἀφηνιάζειν λαούς. Chrysostom. Hom. 111. in eos qui 
Pascha jejunant. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 609, Β 2.) Τριακόσιοι πατέρες, ἢ Kai 
πλείους, εἰς τὴν Βιθυνῶν χώραν συνελθόντες, ταῦτα ἐνομοθέτησαν" Kai 


β ΡΝ ἌΣ ee 
πάντας ἀτιμάζεις ἐκείνους : Kk. τ. Δ. 


96 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


doubt, was the reason why the Audians, or new Quartadeci- 
mans, were treated with such severity, both by the Church 
and state, above the old ones, because they pervicaciously car- 
ried their dissent into a schism, and made a formal rupture in 
the communion of the Church: and for this reason the impe- 
rial laws were often very severe upon them. ‘Theodosius the 
Great, in one of his laws‘, ranks them with the Manichees, 
forbidding their conventicles, confiscating their goods, render- 
ing them intestate, and liable also to capital punishment. In 
like manner, Theodosius Junior ranks the Sabbatians and 
Protopaschitee (which were new denominations of the Quarta- 
decimans, taken up in his time) among the Manichees, 
Cataphrygians or Montanists, Arians, Macedonians *, Euno- 
mians, Novatians, and makes them all liable to the same gene- 
ral punishments inflicted by the laws. And more particularly 
in two other laws‘ he styles them execrable men, who, being 
a spawn of the Novatians, were not content to be in the com- 
mon herd, but set up a new sect, called Protopaschites, because 
they kept the Pasch before other Christians, and pretended 


4 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. de Heeret. leg. ix. (Lugd. 1665. vol. vi. p. 124.) 
Quicumque in unum Paschz diem non obsequenti religione convenerint, tales 
indubitanter, quales hac lege damnavimus, habeantur. 

© Ibid. leg. lix. Manichzi et Phryges . . . Ariani itidem, Macedonianique et 
Eunomiani, Novatiani et Sabbatiani, ceterique heeretici, sciant universa sibi 
hae quoque constitutione denegari, que illis generalium sanctionum interdixit 
auctoritas: puniendis, qui contra generalium Constitutionum interdicta venire 
tentaverint. 

f Ibid. lib. xvi. tit. vi. (Lugd. 1664.) Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. 
Leg. vi. vol. vi. p. 200. Ilud etiam, quod a retro Principibus dissimulatum, et 
im injuriam sacrze legis ab exsecrandis hominibus agitatur, et ab iis potissimum 
qui Novatianorum collegio desertores et refugee, auctores se quum potiores 
[portiones] memoratze sectze haberi contendunt, quibus ex crimine nomen est, 
quum se Protopaschitas appellari desiderent, inultum esse non patimur. Sed si 
alio die Novatiani, quam quo orthodoxorum antistites preedicandum ae memo- 
rabilem in seculis diem Paschze duxerint celebrandum, auctores illius conven- 
tionis deportatio pariter ac proscriptio subsequatur: contra quos etiam acrior 
peena fuerat promulganda: si quidem hoe delictum etiam heereticorum vesaniam 
superet, qui alio tempore, quam quo Orthodoxi, Pasche festivitatem obser- 
vantes, alium pene Dei Filium, non quem colimus, venerantur. Id. lib. xvi. 
tit. x. de Paganis, leg. xxiv. (ibid. p. 295.) Eos qui omnibus hzereticis hae una 
sunt persuasione pejores, quod in venerabili die Paschze ab omnibus dissentiunt, 
si in eadem amentia perseverant, eadem pcena multamus, bonorum proserip- 
tione atque exilio. 








Cirap. V. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 97 


that their way was the true primitive and original institution. 
These he condemns to be both confiscated and banished ; and 
says they deserved a more severe punishment, because they 
exceeded other heretics in madness, worshipping in a manner 
another Christ, by keeping the Pasch at another time, and 
after a different manner than all orthodox Christians. I re- 
member no other place at present that mentions the Proto- 
paschites by name but only this law; but it is plain they were 
one of the worst sort of Quartadecimans, who had made a new 
separation from the Novatian schismatics upon this question 
about the Paschal festival. For some of the Novatians, in 
one of their synods at Pazus, in Phrygia, had made a decree, 
mentioned by Socrates®, that Easter ought to be kept with 
the Jews: which occasioning a new dispute among them (for 
the old Novatians at Rome and Constantinople were of a 
different opinion), Marcianus, the Novatian bishop of Constan- 
tinople, called another synod at Angarus, in Bithynia, where 
to end the controversy, and lay it asleep, they made a new 
canon, called the ἀδιάφορον; which was, that the matter 
should be indifferent, and that both parties might keep the 
feast their own way, and not break communion upon it. But 
Sabbatius, a fierce man among them, would not yield to this, 
but said the decree of the Synod of Pazus ought to be ob- 
served, and the Pasch ought to be observed after the manner 
of the Jews. And upon this he made a new separation 
among the Novatians, and headed the Protopaschites, who 
from him were called Sabbatians. It appears also from 
Chrysostom ἷ, that these Protopaschites were gone further into 
the Jewish notions about the Pasch than the rest of the Quar- 
tadecimans. For they asserted, that it was necessary to 
observe the Jewish Azyma, and keep the fast as the Jews did, 


& Soerat. lib. iv. 6. xxviii. (Vales. p. 202, A 1.) (Reading, p. 251, 2.) Σύνοδον 
ἐν Πάζῳ κώμῃ, ἔνθα τοῦ Σαγγαρίου ποταμοῦ εἰσιν ai πηγαὶ, ποιήσαντες 
ὀλίγοι τινὲς καὶ οὐκ εὔσημοι τῶν περὶ Φρυγίαν Ναυατιανῶν ἐπίσκοποι, ὕρον 
ἐκφέρουσιν, ὥστε ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐπιτηρεῖν, ποιοῦντας τὰ ἄζυμα, καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς 
τὴν τοῦ Πάσχα ἐπιτελεῖν ἑορτήν. 

h Jpid. lib. v. 6. xxi. (Reading, p. 289.) 

i Chrysostom. Hom. lii. in eos qui Pascha jejunant. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. 
Ρ. 610, A 7.) Τοῦτο ἀκούω λεγόντων πολλῶν, OTL μετὰ TOU ἀζύμου τὸ 
πάσχα ἐστίν. 

VOL. VII. H 


98 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


when the Pasch was over. For Sabbatius himself was origi- 
nally a Jew, and retained a tincture of Judaism when he pro- 
fessed the Christian religion; as Socrates notes in the fore- 
mentioned place. So they kept a feast with the Jews, when 
the Christians fasted on the Passion-day (as Chrysostom 
charges them *), and fasted on Easter-day, when the Christians 
kept their festival in memory of the resurrection. This, as 
far as I can collect, is the true history of the progress which 
the new Quartadeciman schism made after the Council of 
Nice; and the reason why the laws, both imperial and eccle- 
siastical, proceeded with greater severity against them, above 
the old Quartadecimans, who never broke communion with 
their brethren, however they differed from them in their prac- 
tice. They thought the peace and unity of the Church of 
greater value than the observation of times and seasons; and 
if they could not comply with their brethren in the precise 
time of keeping Easter, yet they were careful, for all that, to 
keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. 


Sect. 1V.—They, who kept it on the Lord’s-Day, did not 
always agree to fix it on the same Lord’s-Day, by Reason of 
their different Calculations. 


Besides this difference about keeping Easter on the Lord’s- 
day, there was another, which, though of less moment, yet 
sometimes very much embarrassed and troubled the Church. 
That was a dispute among those who agreed to observe the 
festival on no other but the Lord’s-day. For though they all 
unanimously combined in this, yet it was not so easy to deter- 
mine on what Lord’s-day it was to be held, because it was a 
movable feast; and, therefore, sometimes it happened, that 
the Churches of one country kept it a week or a month sooner 
than others, by reason of their different calculations. It ap- 
pears from an epistle of St. Ambrose’, that, in the year 387, 


k Tbid. p.611, E 5. Οὐ διὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστεύομεν, οὐδὲ διὰ TOY σταυρὸν, 
ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τὰ ἡμέτερα, ἐπειδὴ μέλλομεν μυστηρίοις προσιέναι" 
ἐπεὶ τόγε πάσχα οὐ νηστείας ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ πένθους, ἀλλ᾽ εὐφροσύνης καὶ 
χαρᾶς ὑπόθεσις. 

! Ambros. Ep, xxiii. (Paris, 1690. vol. ii. p. 880.) 


Cwap. V. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 99 


Easter was kept at three several times: some observing it 
March 21, others April 18, and others 25; so it happened 
again, an. 577. The Churches of Gaul kept it on March 21, 
the Churches of Italy on April 18, and the Churches of Egypt 
on April 25: as Bishop Stillingfleet™ shows out of Gregory of 
Tours, and Labbe’s ‘ Chronologicum Technicum’ (an. 387 and 
577). Where he shows further, out of the ancient ‘ Later- 
culus Paschalis,’ published by Bucherius®, that the Easter of 
the Latins was, three times, a month sooner than that of the 
Alexandrians, within the compass of a hundred years,—viz. an. 
322, 349, 406. It appears also from Leo’s Epistles°, that in 


m Stillingfleet’s Answer to Cressy. (London, 1675. p. 322, at bottom.) It 
appears by the ancient ‘ Laterculus Paschalis,’ first published by Bucherius, 
that within the compass of it, viz. a hundred years, the Easter of the Latins was 
kept a month sooner than the Alexandrians, viz. 4.p. 322. 349. 406. And a.p. 
387, a threefold Easter was kept ; some March 21, others April 25, others April 
18, as appears by St. Ambrose’s Epistle, written on that occasion. Again, A.D. 
577, a threefold Easter was kept: some keeping it the eighteenth of April, as 
those which followed Victorius; others the twenty-fifth of April, viz. those 
which followed the Alexandrian. Canon; and others again, even in Gaul, as 
Gregory Turonensis saith, on the 12. Kalend. of April, March 21, the very day 
of the vernal equinox, ete. 

n Bucher. Commentar, in Hippolyt. can. Paschal. p. 264. Hie est Paschalis 
ille centum annorum laterculus, quo vetustiorem, Latinorum quidem, nondum 
videre contigit ; nobilissimum (meo quidem sensu) venerandze antiquitatis 
ecclesiasticee monumentum. Et est illius epocha sane perillustris; nempe a 
Maxentio, crucis virtute per Constantinum debellato, assertaque tum primum 
ecclesize, saltem in Occidente, libertate, annis ante Niczenam synodum omnino 
tredecim. Qui ejus meminerit, neminem veterum adhuc invenies: vetustissimze 
tantum membranze beneficio ad nos usque pervenit. Cuspiniano quoque in 
manus obyenisse, ex ejus fastis intelligimus, ut supra monui. Porro Latinorum 
potius, quam aliorum fuisse, docet nos ipsa Paschatum series. Nam cum iis 
solis ter Pascha planissime decernit, toto mense, quam Victorius et Alexandrini, 
maturius. Semel anno Christi 322, iterum 349, denique 406; et limes ipse 
patrum Czesariensium Paschalis, qui numquam hic violatur, numquam jam inde 
ab synodo Niczena ab Alexandrinis, sed Latinorum dumtaxat nonnullis admissus, 
his potius, quam illis adstruit. 

° Leo, Epist. Ixiv. ad Marcian. (Opp. Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 1230.) (Labbe, 
vol. iii. p. 1855, C 5.) Theophilus, Alexandrine ecclesize episcopus, quum hujus 
observationis annos centum numero collegisset, septuagesimi sexti anni Paschale 
festum longe aliter, quam alii decreverant, tenendum esse constituit. Nam a 
primo augustze memorize Theodosii senioris consulatu [i. e. an. Christi 380] 
succedentem sibi sacree observantize ordinem ponens, ut longioris temporis ratio 
ejus litteris teneretur adscripta, cujus complexionis septuagesimus et quartus 
est annus, in quo pridie Idus Aprilis sanctum Pascha celebravyimus: sequenti 


81 De 


100 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX- 


the year 455 there were eight days’ difference between the 
Easter at Rome and at Alexandria. Cyril of Alexandria?, in 
one of his Paschal epistles, complains that there was great 
confusion in the account of Easter both in the Church, the 


vero anno pridie Nonas Aprilis eadem, propitio Deo, erit habenda festivitas, 
sicut regulariter centenarize annorum rationis ordo declarat: sed in anno, qui 
erit septuagesimus sextus (i. 6. Christi 455), is Paschee dies invenitur adscriptus, 
quem a passione Domini nullius exempli, nullius constitutionis admittit aucto- 
ritas. Nam diem octavum Kalendarum Maiarum ab eo cognoscimus przefini- 
tum, qui anni[nimie] limitem antiquifws[-c] constitutum[-ionis] excedit: quum 
alii quintum decimum Kalendarum Maiarum huie festivitati deputaverint diem, 
ete. Id. Epist. 122. ad Jul. Epise. (Venet. vol. i. p. 1232.) Annus, qui erit sep- 
tuagesimus sextus (Chr. 455) memorati episcopi (Theophili Alexandrini) anno- 
tationem habere cognoscitur, quie a totius antiquitatis exemplo, et ab omni 
auctoritate patrum discordat. Siquidem in octavum Kalendarum Maiarum 
Dominicum Pascha transtulerit, preefinitos antiquitus limites nimis au[evi]denter 
excedens, quum in die quinto decimo Kalendarum Maiarum Paschalem sollem- 
nitatem potuerit adnotare. Id. Epist. xev. ad Episcopos Gallize et Hispanize. 
(Venet. vol. i. p. 1284.) Quum in quibusdam adscriptionibus patrum, futurum 
proxime Pascha Domini, ab aliis in diem xv. Kalendarum Maiarum, ab aliis in 
diem viii. Kalendarum earumdem inveniretur adscriptum ; tantum me diversi- 
tas ista permovit, ut clementissimo principi Marciano curam de hac re animi 








mei panderem, etc. 

P Cyril. Epist. Paschal. (ap. Bucher. de Doctrina Temporum, p. 482.) Quum 
his igitur atque hujusmodi dissensionibus per universum orbem Paschalis regula 
turbaretur ; sanctorum totius orbis synodi consensione decretum est, ut quoniam 
apud Alexandriam talis esset reperta ecclesia, quee in hujus scientia clareret, 
quota Kalendarum vel Iduum, quota luna Pascha debeat celebrari, per singulos 
annos Romane ecclesiz litteris intimaret : unde apostolica auctoritate universalis 
ecclesia per totum orbem definitum Paschze diem sine ulla disceptatione cognos- 
ceret. Quod cum per multa seecula pariter custodissent ; nullamque inde Serip- 
turarum quispiam crederet, ubi nulla queestio solveretur ; et nonnunquam occur- 
reret, ut in Sabbato luna xxi., quee illis xxiii. a quinto decimo Kalendarum 
Maiarum, usque in octavum, quasi in secundo mense Pascha celebrare metue- 
retur; essetque magna confusio in omni ecclesia, Preetorio vel Palatio ;— 
Theodosius, imperator religiosissimus, qui non solum in humanis, verum etiam 
in Divinis legibus placere Deo semper studuit, sanctum Theophilum, Alexan- 
drinze urbis episcopum, suis litteris corrogavit, ut sacramentum Paschze eviden- 
tissima ratione disserere, sibique dirigere dignaretur. Cujus sanctissimis prze- 
ceptis obtemperans, quadringentorum octodecim annorum circulum Paschalem 
instituit, ejusque clementize, a primo anno consulatus ejus, usque ad centum 
ealeulans, quota Kalendarum vel Iduum, et quota luna Pascha debeat celebrari, 
subjectis suis litteris destinavit, manifestamque veritatem sub libello breviter 
perstrinxit. In quo, revelante sibi Domino, perfectze rationis ordinem pandit, 
omnesque errores, ac superfluas quzestiones luce clarius expugnavit atque dis- 
solvit. 


Cuar. V. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 101 


camp, and the palace. And Anatolius, in his Preface to his 
Paschal Canon, complains’, “That there were very different 
and contrary cycles in use in his time (an. 270): some follow- 
ing Hippolytus’s cycle of sixteen ; others, the Jewish cycle of 
eighty-four; others, a cycle of twenty-five ; others, a cycle of 
thirty; and,” he tells us, “that Isidore, Jerome, Clemens, 
and Origen, all his countrymen, Egyptians, had laboured in 
this matter before him.” But, notwithstanding any endeavours 
that could be used then or afterwards, there remained great 
differences in the Church about it for many ages: for the 
Churches of Great Britain and Ireland did not accord with 
the Roman Church in keeping Easter on the same Sunday", 
till about the year 800. Nor was the Roman way fully re- 
ceived in France, till it was settled there by the authority of 
Charles the Great: as has lately been shown by two learned 
writers, Bishop Stillingfleet and Dr. Prideaux, who give a full 
account of the controversy between the Britons and Romans, 
which I shall not here repeat; but only acquaint the reader 


a Anatol. can. Paschal. ap. Bucher. p. 439. In veteribus exemplaribus, id 
est, Hebreeis et Greecis voluminibus, non tantum lunz cursum, sed etiam solis 
non solum gressus, sed et singula ac minutissima horarum momenta, invenimus 
computa. Εἰ quibus Hippolytus xvi. annorum circulum quibusdam ignotis lunze 
cursibus composuit. Alii xxv., alii xxx., nonnulli Ixxxiv. annorum circulum 
computantes, numquam ad veram Pascha computandi rationem pervenerunt. 
Verum majores nostri, Hebreeorum et Grzecorum librorum peritissimi (Isidorum, 
et Hieronymum, et Clementem dico) licet dissimilia mensium principia pro 
diversitate linguze senserint ; tamen ad unam eamdemque Paschie certissimam 
rationem, die et luna, et tempore convenientibus summa veneratione Dominicze 
resurrectionis consenserunt. Sed et Origenes, omnium eruditissimus, et calculi 
componendi perspicacissimus (quippe qui et χαλκευτὴς vocatus), libellum de 
Pascha luculentissime edidit. Im quo adnuntians de die Paschee non solum 
cursum, et eequinoctii transitum intuendum, sed et solis transcensum, omnium 
tenebrarum tetras insidias et offendicula auferentis, et lucis adventum, ac totius 
elementorum virtutem et inspirationem afferentis, esse servandum, ita dicit : ‘In 
die, inquit, ‘ Paschze non dico observandum, ut dies Dominica inveniatur, et 
lunze vii. (forte xiv.) dies transeundi, sed ut sol divisionem illam, lucis scilicet 
et tenebrarum, in exordio mundi, Domini dispensatione eequaliter compositam, 
transcendat,’ ete. 

τ See Stillingfleet’s Answer to Cressy, pp. 321, 322. Dr. Prideaux’s Con- 
nexion of History, &c. part ii. book iv. (Oxford, 1820. vol. ili. p. 327.) At 
length, about the year 800, the errors of the old way growing very conspicuous, 
ἄς, ἄς. 





102 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


how these differences happened at first in the Church, by 
using different ways of calculation. 

It is agreed on all hands, that the first Christians of Jeru- 
salem had no other way of finding out Easter, but by the 
Jewish cycle of eighty-four years, which the Jews had used 
some time before to settle the anniversary returns of the Pass- 
over: which cycle, though it was a little faulty, continued to 
be used by the Christians for near two hundred years. Not 
that they kept their Easter on the fourteenth day with the 
Jews, as Scaliger’ and some others have erroneously hence 
concluded ; for which they are corrected by Bishop Usshert 
and Bishop Beveridge", who show, that those first Christians 
of Jerusalem, though they followed the Jewish computation, 
did not keep Easter with the Jews on what day of the week 
soever it fell, but on the Sunday following, in honour of our 
Saviour’s resurrection: however, they continued to use the 
Jewish cycle, till the fifteen bishops of Jerusalem, who were of 
the circumcision, were succeeded by others who were not of 
the circumcision, and then they began to reckon their Easter 
by other computations. Epiphanius says expressly*, “‘ That 


5. Sealiger. de Emendat. Tempor. (lib. ii. p. 150.) In primordiis ecclesize tum 
apostoli, tum qui eos centum annis postea sequuti sunt, Pascha semper Judaice 
celebrarunt, ut testantur Eusebius et Historia vetus Ecclesiastica, et post omnes 
Nicephorus Callistus.... Qui per omnia apostolos hae in re imitarentur, et 
permulti ex illis ex Judaismo ad Christianismum transissent, non obscurum est, 
eorum cyclum merum Judaicum fuisse, et de periodo Alexandrea Judzeorum 
peti solitum. ϊ 

Ὁ Usser. Prolegom. ad Ignat. ¢. ix. (Coteler, vol. ii. p. 204.) Ut maximopere 
viri docti decepti hic fuerint, qui ex consensu in Paschalis mensis Ψηφισμῷ cum 
primis Hierosolymorum episcopis stabilito, Paschatis quocumque septimanze die 
cum Quartadecimanis observandi ritum simul fuisse introductum sibi persuase- 
runt. 

« Bevereg. ad Can. Apostol. vii. (Pand. vol. ii. p. 19.) Josephus Scaliger, tum 
apostolos, tum qui eos centum annis postea sequuti sunt, Pascha semper Judaice 
celebrasse, ex Eusebio, Historia veteri Ecclesiastica, et Nicephoro Callisto 
adfirmare non yeretur, de Emendat. Temp. lib. ii. p. 150. (edit. Genev. 1629.) 
Verum hane Sealigeri doctrinam auctoribus istis falso adseriptam, et ab omnibus 
detestandam esse, Dionysius Petavius fuse probat, de Doctrina Temp. lib. ii. 
ὁ. lvii. 

x Epiphan. Hieres. Ixx. Audianos, n. x. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 822, B 5.) 
ἱΟρίζουσι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ διατάξει ot ἀπόστολοι, bre ὑμεῖς μὴ ψηφίζετε, ἀλλὰ 


τὸ τ 1 3s Vek ty = Fee pian. tD ~ 
ποιεῖτε, OTaY οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ὑμῶν, οἱ EK περιτομῆς, μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἅμα ποιεῖτε. 


Cuar. V. 8 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 103 


they kept Easter at first by the old Jewish cycle:” and he 
quotes an order out of the Apostolical Constitutions (different 
from those which we have now), appointing them not to 
trouble themselves about calculations, but to keep the feast 
at the same time with the brethren that came out of the cir- 
cumcision ; and not be concerned, though they were mistaken 
in their calculations—But when that succession of Jewish 
bishops was ended, with the destruction of Jerusalem, in the 
time of Hadrian, some Christians began to inquire into the 
defects of the Jewish cycle, which was found to make Easter 
sometimes anticipate the vernal equinox, and so bring two 
Easters into one year. To remedy which inconvenience, they 
began to invent other cycles. About the year 220, Hippo- 
lytus, bishop of Portus, or Adana in Arabia, published a new 
eycle in his Paschal Canon, which, Eusebius says’, was called 
the ἑκκαιδεκαετηρὶς» or ‘cycle of sixteen years.’ Not long after 
this, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about the year 250, set 
forth another canon called the ὀκταετηρὶς, or ‘cycle of eight 
years:’ in which, as Eusebius tells us’, he particularly re- 
marked, that the Paschal festival ought never to be kept till 
after the vernal equinox. Not long after, Anatolius, who was 
also an Alexandrian, about the year 270, published another 
cycle, which Eusebius* says was called the ἐννεαδεκαετηρὶς, 
‘the cycle of nineteen: in which he showed, from several 
ancient Jewish writers themselves, that the Pasch ought never 
to be before the vernal equinox; and, therefore, there was a 
necessity of correcting their cycle. Hence, about this time, 
Bishop Ussher reckons the seventh of those called the Apos- 
tolical Canons’, and the interpolation of the old Constitutions 


y Euseb. lib. vi. ο. xxii. (Reading, 1720. p. 286.) Τότε δῆτα καὶ (ἽἹππόλυτος 
συντάττων, μετὰ πλείστων ἄλλων ὑπομνημάτων, Kai περὶ τοῦ πάσχα TE- 
ποίηται σύγγραμμα: ἐν ᾧ τῶν χρόνων ἀναγραφὴν ἐκθέμενος" καί τινα 
κανόνα ἑκκαιδεκαετηρίδος περὶ τοῦ πάσχα προθεὶς, ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτο- 
κράτορος ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει. 

z Jhbid. lib. vii. ο. xx. (ibid. p. 344.) "Ev ἢ [ἐπιστολῇ] καὶ κανόνα ἐκτίθεται 
ὀκταετηρίδος, OTe μὴ ἄλλοτε ἢ μετὰ τὴν ἐαρινὴν ἰσημερίαν προσήκοι τὴν 
τοῦ πάσχα ἑορτὴν ἐπιτελεῖν παριστάμενος. 

a Ibid. 6. xxxii. (ibid. p. 369, 5.) "Ex τῶν περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ᾿Ανατολίου 
κανόνων" ἔχεις τοίνυν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ἔτει τὴν νουμηνίαν τοῦ πρώτου μηνὸς, 
ἥτις ἁπάσης ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τῆς ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδος. 

b Usser. Prolegom. in Ignat. c. ix. (Coteler. vol. ii. p. 204.) Atque hine nata 


104 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


took their original. The former of which says‘, “If any 
bishop, presbyter, or deacon, keep the Paschal feast before 
the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.” And 
the other’, “ Ye, brethren, who are redeemed with the pre- 
cious blood of Christ, ought to keep the Pasch with all dili- 
gence and exactness after the equinox, that ye may not, twice 
in one year, commemorate the passion of him who died but 
once ; and be careful that ye observe not the Pasch with the 
Jews. For we have now no communion with them. For 
they are deceived in their very calculation, which they imagine 
to be exact. So that they err in all respects, and are found to 
deviate from the truth.” We see, at this time, the Jewish 
calculation was rejected by the Eastern Church, and yet no 
certain one agreed upon in its room, to fix unalterably the 
precise Lord’s-day on which they were to celebrate this fes- 
tival. Therefore, this matter remaining still uncertain, the 
Council of Nice®, which determined that it should be kept 
only upon the Lord’s-day, is said also to have committed the 
care of the cycle to the bishops of Alexandria, that they might 
inform the rest of the world on what Lord’s-day every year it 
was to be observed. Some think upon this Eusebius was 
employed to draw up the cycle of nineteen, which was after- 
wards perfected by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, in the 


est, tum octavi canonis apostolici prima constitutio, tum διατάξεως Apostolicze 
longe post ab interpolatore hoe nostro ad eumdem facta conformatio. 

¢ Can. Apost. vii. See sect. iii. note (x), p. 94. 

4 Constitut. lib. v. ¢. xvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 363.) Δεῖ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, 
τοὺς TH τοῦ Χριστοῦ τιμίῳ ἐξηγορασμένους αἵματι, τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ πάσχα 
ἀκριβῶς ποιεῖσθαι, μετὰ πάσης ἐπιμελείας, μετὰ τροπὴν ἰσημερινήν᾽ ὅπως 
μὴ δὶς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑνὸς παθήματος μνείαν ποιεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ ἅπαξ τοῦ ἔτους 
τοῦ ἅπαξ ἀποθανόντος" μηκέτι δὲ παρατηρούμενοι μετὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἑορτάζειν" 
οὐδεμία γὰρ κοινωνία ἡμῖν νῦν πρὸς αὐτούς" πεπλάνηνται γὰρ καὶ αὐτὴν 
τὴν ψῆφον, ἣν νομίζουσιν ἐπιτελεῖν. ὕπως πανταχόθεν wat πεπλανημένοι, 
καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπεσχοινισμένοι. 

¢ Leo, Epist. Ixiv. (Opp. Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 1228.) δὰ Marcian. August. 
Studuerunt sancti patres (Niczeni) oceasionem hujus erroris auferre, omnem 
hane curam Alexandrino episcopo delegantes (quoniam apud Adgyptios hujus 
supputationis antiquitus tradita esse videbatur peritia), per quem, quotannis 
[qui annis] singulis dies prezedictze sollemnitatis [eveniret,] sedi apostolicze indi- 
caretur, cujus scriptis [ut hujus seripti] ad longinquiores ecclesias indicium 
generale [ judicium generaliter] percurreret. [N.B. The words in italics show 
the text in Labbe, vol. iii. p. 1355, C.] 


Cuap. V. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 105 


time of Theodosius, into a calculation for a hundred years. 
And yet after this it was that Cyril still complained of great 
confusion in the account of Easter in the Church, in the 
camp, and in the palace; and that the Roman and Alexan- 
drian accounts sometimes varied a week or a month from each 
other, as we have seen before, which was owing purely to 
their different ways of calculation: because the Roman Church 
still proceeded by the old Jewish cycle of eighty-four, and not 
by the new Alexandrian cycle of nineteen. To remedy this 
confusion, one Victorius, a Frenchman, was employed by Hila- 
rius, archdeacon of Rome, to make a new Paschal canon ; but 
neither did his attempt succeed: for though he took in the 
Alexandrian cycle of nineteen, yet still he retained so much of 
the Roman, as made the variation of Easter Sunday sometimes 
a week, and sometimes a month, between them. And no 
effectual cure was found for this, till Dionysius Exiguus (an. 
525) brought the Alexandrian Canon entire into the use of 
the Roman Church. Meanwhile the Churches of France and 
Britain kept to the old Roman Canon: and it was two or three 
ages after, before the new Roman, that is, the Alexandrian 
Canon, was, not without some struggle and difficulty, entirely 
settled among them. ‘This is the short of the history of the 
long dispute that happened in the Church among those, that 
were otherwise agreed to keep Easter only on the Lord’s-day ; 
which was owing purely, as we have seen, to the great variety 
of their cycles and calculations. Meanwhile particular mem- 
bers of particular Churches had no concern in this dispute, 
but were obliged, for peace sake, to follow the rule of their 
own Church, though there might be some error in her cal- 
culation. For, as Chrysostom says well upon the dispute with 
the Protopaschites‘, ‘“‘ Men were not bound to be over critical 
about days, and times, and years, but carefully, in such mat- 
ters, to follow the Church; and prefer peace and charity 


Γ Chrysostom. Hom, lii. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 615, A.) My τοίνυν ἡμέρας 
καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἐνιαυτοὺς παρατηρῶμεν, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ μετ᾽ 
ἀκριβείας ἑπώμεθα, τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην προτιμῶντες ἁπάντων" εἰ 
γὰρ καὶ ἐσφάλλετο ἡ ἐκκλησία, οὐ τοσοῦτον κατόρθωμα ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν 
χρόνων ἀκριβείας ἦν, ὅσον ἔγκλημα ἀπὸ τῆς διαιρέσεως καὶ τοῦ σχίσματος 
τούτου. 


106 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


before all other things. For though the Church were in an 
error, yet there was no such advantage or commendation to be 
gained by the exact knowledge of times, as there might be 
disadvantage and dispute arising from division and schism 
about it.” And with this consideration, men were generally 
inclined to keep Easter in peace ; and sometimes comply with 
what they thought a wrong calculation, rather than make a 
disturbance in the Church upon it. As Pope Leo tells the 
French and Spanish bishops, he complied with the Alexan- 
drian cycle, in the year 455, when there was a week’s differ- 
ence in their computation; the Roman cycle placing Easter 
on the seventeenth of April, and the Alexandrian on the 
twenty-fourth. But he acquiesced, he says®, in their deter- 
mination, for the sake of peace and unity; and desired the 
Western bishops so to do likewise, and to give notice of the 
time to their brethren; that they, who were united in the 
same faith, might not be divided about the solemnity of the 
festival.—This was an excellent rule of peace, though there 
were some fierce and untractable spirits that would not always 
be content to be governed by it. 


Sect. V.—But they all agreed to pay a great respect and 
honour to it, as to the Day of our Lord’s Resurrection. 


Having thus far accounted for the differences that were 
in the Church about the time of this festival, I come now to 


8. Leo, Ep. exv. (Opp. Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 1284.) Quum in quibusdam 
adseriptionibus patrum futurum proxime Pascha Domini, ab aliis in diem xv. 
Kalendarum Maiarum [/¢alendas Maias,] ab aliis in diem viii. Kalendarum 
earumdem [/talendas easdem] inveniretur adscriptum; tantum me diversitas 
ista permoyit, ut clementissimo principi Marciano curam de hac re animi mei 
panderem, ut, preecipiente ipso, ab his qui habent hujus supputationis peritiam, 
diligentius illic discussa ratione queereretur, quo die possit veneranda sollem- 
nitas rectius celebrari. Quo rescribente, viii. Kalendas Maias definitus est 
dies. Quia ergo studio unitatis et pacis malui Orientalium definitioni acqui- 
escere, quam in tant festivitatis observantia dissidere, noverit fraternitas 
vestra, die viii. Kalendas Maias ab omnibus resurrectionem Dominicam cele- 
brandam: et hoe ipsum per vos aliis fratribus esse intimandum, ut Divinze 
pacis consortio, sicut una fide jungimur, ita una solemnitate feriemur.—The 
words in italic exhibit the text in Labbe’s Councils, (vol. iii. p. 1449.) See 
Prosper. Chronic. an, 455, (Paris. 1711. p. 754.) Eodem anno Pascha Domini- 
cum die viii. Kalendas Maii celebratum est, ete. 


Cnap. V. § 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 107 


show wherein they all agreed to pay a peculiar respect and 
honour to it. Gregory Nazianzen", after his manner, styles 
it “the queen of days,” and “the festival of festivals, which 
excels all others, not only human, but even those that are 
instituted to the honour of Christ, as far as the sun goes 
beyond the other stars.” It was a day of extraordinary re- 
joicing upon the account of our Lord’s resurrection ; being, 
as Chrysostom styles it', ‘‘the desirable festival of our sal- 
vation, the day of our Lord’s resurrection, the foundation of 
our peace, the occasion of our reconciliation, the end of our 
contentions and enmity with God, the destruction of death, 
and our victory over the devil.” Hence, in some ancient 
writers, it is distinguished from all other Lord’s-days in the 
year by the peculiar name of ‘ Dominica Gaudii,’ ‘the Lord’s 
day of joy, as Papebroch and Pagi* have observed upon the 
Life of Pachomius and Theodore, the latter of which saints is 
said to have ended his life ‘ Dominica Gaudii,’ which those 
learned men think can be understood of no other but Easter 
Sunday ; and that implies, that this was then a known and 
noted appellation. 


h Nazianz. Orat. xix. in Fun. Patris. (Colon. 1690. tom. i. p. 304, A 1.) To 
ἅγιον πάσχα καὶ περιβόητον, ἡ βασίλισσα τῶν ἡμερῶν ἡμέρα. Orat. xlii. 
de Pasch. (p. 676, C 9.) (Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 846.) Αὕτη ἑορτῶν ἡμῖν 
ἑορτὴ, Kai πανήγυρις πανηγύρεων, τοσοῦτον ὑπεραίρουσα πάσας, οὐ τὰς 
ἀνθρωπικὰς μόνον καὶ χαμαὶ ἐρχομένας, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη καὶ τὰς αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ 
καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τελουμένας, ὕσον ἀστέρας ἥλιος. 

i Chrysostom. Hom. ἰχχχν. de Paschate. (tom. v. p. 587. Savil.) ᾿Ιδοὺ ἡμῖν 
παραγέγονεν ἡ ποθεινὴ καὶ σωτήριος ἑορτὴ, ἡ ἀναστάσιμος ἡμέρα τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ τῆς εἰρήνης ὑπόθεσις, ἡ τῆς καταλλαγῆς 
ἀφορμὴ, ἡ τῶν πολέμων ἀναίρεσις, ἡ τοῦ θανάτου κατάλυσις, ἡ τοῦ δια- 
βόλου ἧττα. 

k Papebr. Vita Pachomii, xiv. Maii. Pagi Critic. in Baron. an. 370. n. v. 
(Luce, vol. v. p. 282.) (Antverp. 1727. vol. i. p. 520.) Scripta ea epistola 
(Athanasii super sancti Theodori mortem) ut notat Papebrocius in Vita SS. 
Pachomii et Theodori abbatum Tabennensium in Thebaide, die xiv. Maii, 
paragrapho xvii. anno Christi 368, post Theodori mortem, quie, ut legitur in 
laudata vita, contigit Dominica Gaudii, id est, Paschatis, ut Papebrocius inter- 
pretatur, 








108 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boo XX. 


Sect. VI.—On this Day the Emperors granted a general 
Release to the Prisons, and pardoned all Criminals, eacept 
some few that were guilty of Crimes of a more unpardonable 
Nature. 


One great instance of this public joy was given by the 
emperors, who were used to grant a general release to the 
prisons on this day; and, by an act of grace, called their 
‘indulgence,’ set all prisoners free, except some few that had 
committed crimes of a more unpardonable nature. This cus- 
tom was first begun by Valentinian (an. 367), who has two 
laws in the Theodosian Code to this purpose. The former of 
which runs in these terms!: “In honour of the Paschal fes- 
tival, which we celebrate from the bottom of our heart, we 
open the prisons to all criminals that lie bound in chains, only 
excepting such as are guilty of sacrilege, treason, robbing of 
graves, poisoning, magic, adultery, stealing, or ravishing of 
virgins, and murder, from the benefit of this indulgence.” 
Valentinian Junior and Theodosius (an. 381) made a like act 
of grace, only excepting the same crimes, under which they 
more expressly comprised parricide, incest, and counterfeiting 
the public coin™, as species of murder, adultery, and treason, 
which, for their infamous character, ought to have a more 
notorious mark set upon them. They also excepted such as 
relapsed into their former crimes, because they abused the in- 
dulgence of the prince, by making that an incitement to sin, 
which was intended only as a means to correct evil habits, and 
bring them toa reformation. The same emperor (an. 385) 
made another decree, that whereas it might happen, that, by 


! Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxxviii. de Indulgentiis Criminum, leg. iii. (Lugd. 
1665. vol. ili. p. 270.) Ob diem Paschze, quem intimo corde celebramus, omni- 
bus quos reatus astringit, carcer inclusit, claustra dissolyimus: attamen sacri- 
legus, in majestate reus, in mortuos, veneficus, sive maleficus, adulter, raptor, 
homicida, communione istius muneris separentur.—Vid. leg. iv. Ejusdem Imper. 
ibid. Paschze celebritas postulat, ut quoscumque nunc zegra exspectatio quies- 
tionis, poenzeque formido sollicitat, absolvamus: Decretis tamen veterum mos 
gerendus est, ne temere homicidii crimen, adulterii foeditatem, majestatis inju- 
riam, maleficiorum scclus, insidias venenorum, raptusque violentiam sinamus 
evadere. 

m ΤΌ], leg. vi. et vii. See book xvi. chap. x. sect. i. 


Cuap. V. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 109 


the negligence or remissness of messengers, or any other acci- 
dent, their letters of grace might come too late, the judges of 
provinces" should be empowered, as soon as Haster-day was 
come, to dispense the accustomed indulgence, causing the 
prisons to be opened, the chains to be knocked off, and the 
persons to be set at liberty, such only excepted as it would be 
a scandal to pardon, because their actions were a reproach to 
the purity of that holy and joyful season. “For who,” say 
they with great elegancy, “would grant an indulgence to a 
sacrilegious villain at a holy season? who would pardon an 
adulterer, or an incestuous person, at a time which calls for 
perfect chastity who would not pursue a ravisher of virgins in 
the profoundest peace and public joy? let him have no rest nor 
respite from his bonds, whose barbarous cruelty would not 
suffer the dead to rest quietly in their graves: let the poisoner 
and the sorcerer, and the falsifier of the coin, still suffer tor- 
ment: let the murderer expect the same that he has done to 
others; and the rebel despair of pardon from his prince, 
against whom he has plotted treason.” But excepting these 
eriminals, all others had the benefit of these imperial indul- 
gences at this holy season. Justinian takes no notice of the 
former laws, but inserts*this last into his Code°®, which shows 
that it became the standing law of the Roman empire. And 
the Goths adopted it also into their law, as appears from one 
of Cassiodore’s epistles?, which Gothofred commends as written 


n [hbid. leg. viii. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. iii. p. 277.) Nemo deinceps (tardiores 
fortassis) affatus nostrae Perennitatis exspectet: exsequantur judices, quod in- 
dulgere consuevimus. Ubi primum dies Paschalis exstiterit, nullum teneat 
cearcer inclusum, omnium vincula solvantur. Sed ab his secernimus eos, quibus 
contaminari potius gaudia leetitiamque communem, si dimittantur, advertimus. 
Quis enim sacrilego diebus sanctis indulgeat ? Quis adultero vel incesti reo 
tempore castitatis ignoscat? Quis non raptorem in summa quiete et gaudio 
communi persequatur instantius? Nullam accipiat requiem vinculorum, qui 
quiescere sepultos quadam sceleris immanitate non sivit: patiatur tormenta 
veneficus,; maleficus, adulteratorque monetze: homicida, quod fecit, semper ex- 
spectet: Reus etiam majestatis de Domino, adversum quem talia molitus est, 
veniam sperare non debet. 

ο Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. iv. de Episeopali Audientia, leg. iii. (Amstel. 1663. 
p- 25.) Ubi primus dies Paschalis extiterit, nullum teneat carcer inclusum. 

P Cassiodor. lib. xi. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. xi. p. 1248, E17.) Ad te Claus- 
trorum magistrum verba revocemus, ete. Ut tuos quoque gemitus consolemur, 


Ι 


110 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


with a great deal of elegancy upon this subject. The ancient 
fathers not only mentioned these Paschal indulgences, but fre- 
quently speak of them with great commendations. St. Chry- 
sostom more than once tells us4, ‘‘ That when Flavian, bishop 
of Antioch, went to intercede with Theodosius, the emperor, 
for that city, which, by the seditious practices of some, had 
highly incurred his displeasure, among other arguments to 
mitigate his anger against them, he made use of this, taken 
from his own practice, that, in honour of the Paschal festival, 
he was used to send letters round the world, to cause all pri- 
sons to be opened, and all that were in bonds to be set at 
liberty: ‘Therefore, take an example,’ said he, ‘ from yourself ; 
and call to mind your own humanity; when in one of your 
letters, as if it had not been enough to discharge the prison- 
ers, you were pleased to add, ‘I wish I were able to recal 
those that are already executed, and restore them to life 
again.’’” St. Ambrose’ made use of the same argument to 
aggravate the offence of the younger Valentinian, when, by 
the persuasion of his mother Justina, the Arian empress, he 


illos tibi tantummodo vindica, quos lex pietatis gratia non relaxat, ne, quum 
truculentis parceret, asperrima facinora levigaret. 

4 Chrysostom. Hom. vi. ad Popul. Antioch. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 76, D.) 
Ἔν ταύταις ταῖς ἡμέραις πέμψας [ὁ βασιλεὺς] ἐπιστολὴν εἰς τιμὴν τῆς 
ἑορτῆς, τοὺς τὸ δεσμωτήριον οἰκοῦντας σχεδὸν ἀφῆκεν ἅπαντας, καὶ ταύτην 
ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ ἡμέτερος εἰσελθὼν ἀναγνώσεται τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, 
καὶ τῶν οἰκείων αὐτὸν ἀναμνήσει νόμων, καὶ ἐρεῖ πρὸς αὐτὸν, Ὅτι σὺ 
σαυτὸν παρακάλεσον, καὶ τὰ σαυτοῦ μίμησαι, οἴκοθεν ἔχεις τὸ παράδειγμα 
τῆς φιλανθρωπίας, δίκαιον οὐχ εἵλου ποιῆσαι φόνον, καὶ ἄδικον ὑπομενεῖς 
ἐργάσασθαι; τοὺς ἐληλεγμένους καὶ καταδικασθέντας τὴν ἑορτὴν αἰδεσθεὶς 
ἀφῆκας, καὶ τοὺς ἀνευθύνους καὶ μηδὲν τετολμηκότας κατακρινεῖς, εἰπέ μοι, 
καὶ ταῦτα τῆς ἑορτῆς παρούσης ; μηδαμῶς, βασιλεῦ: σὺ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς 
ταύτης διαλεγόμενος ταῖς πόλεσι πάσαις ἔλεγες, Hide μοι δυνατὸν ἦν καὶ 
τοὺς νεκροὺς ἀναστῆσαι" ταύτης δεόμεθα τῆς φιλανθρωπίας, τούτων δεόμεθα 
τῶν ῥημάτων νῦν. Id. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 219, D 7.) Μέμνησαι πρώην, OTE 
τῆς ἑορτῆς ταύτης καταλαβούσης ἐπιστολὴν ἔπεμψας πανταχοῦ τῆς οἰκου- 
μένης, κελεύουσαν τοὺς τὸ δεσμωτήριον οἰκοῦντας ἀφεῖναι, καὶ συγχωρεῖν 





αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐγκλήματα, καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἀρκούντων ἐκείνων δεῖξαί σου τὴν 
; » ΤΗΝ, ; er aa ie ᾿ 
φιλανθρωπίαν, ἔλεγες διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων, “Ore εἶθέ μοι δυνατὸν ἣν, καὶ 
τοὺς ἀπελθόντας καλέσαι καὶ ἀναστῆσαι, καὶ πρὸς τὴν προτέραν ἀναγαγεῖν 
ζωήν. ; 
ΤΟ Ambros. Ep. xxxiii. (Bened. 1686. vol. ii. p. 853.) Itaque sanctis diebus 
hebdomadis ultimze, quibus solebant debitorum laxari vincula, strident catenze, 
imponuntur collo innocentium, ete. 


Cuar. V. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 111 


had sent some of the Catholic bishops to prison, at the holy 
feast of Easter, when it was customary to loose the bonds of 
those that were already in prison, and which he himself 
before was used to do, as appears from his laws already men- 
tioned. The same custom is mentioned by Gregory Nyssen, 
who, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, says*, “ There is 
no one so miserable, as not to find a release by the magnificence 
of this great festival. For at this time the prisoner is loosed, 
the debtor is set at liberty, and the slave has his manumission, 
or freedom, granted him by the kind declaration of the Church.” 
In like manner, the petition presented by the Eutychian 
monks to the second Council of Ephesus, recorded in the acts 
of the Council of Chaleedont, takes notice, ‘That as the 
Church was wont to absolve sinners, at Easter, from the bonds 
of excommunication, so the emperors used to loose the bonds 
of those that were in prison for their offences.” 

Chrysostom further acquaints us with the reason, or ground 
of this practice, telling us*, ‘‘ That the emperors set prisoners 
at liberty, that they might imitate, as far as in them lay, the 
example of their Lord and Master. For as he delivered us 
from the grievous prison of our sins, and made us capable of 
enjoying innumerable blessings ; so ought we, in like manner, 
as far as was possible, to imitate the mercy and kindness of 
our Lord.” So again, in his homily upon Psalm exlv., which 
was spoken in the Passion-week, and therefore goes under 


s Nyssen. Hom. iii. de Resurrect. Christi. (Paris. 1638. vol. ili. p. 420, A 7.) 
Οὐδεὶς δὲ οὕτως κατώδυνος, ὡς ἄνεσιν μὴ εὑρέσθαι' τῇ μεγαλοπρεπείᾳ τῆς 
ἑορτῆς νῦν ὁ δεσμώτης λύεται, ὁ χρεωστὴς ἀφίεται, ὁ δοῦλος ἐλευθεροῦται 
τῷ ἀγαθῷ καὶ φιλανθρώπῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας κηρύγματι. 

t Cone. Chalced. Act. i. (Labbe, tom. iv. Cone. p. 278, C 4.) ᾽᾿Επέστη Kai 4 
τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ἡμέρα, καὶ νὺξ ἱερὰ, καὶ ἡ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἑορτὴ; 
καθ᾽ ἣν λύεται μὲν τοῖς πλείστοις τῶν ἡμαρτηκότων τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων 
πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐπιτίμια, λύεται δὲ παρὰ τῶν βασιλευόντων ἐπὶ τῶν ἐγκλη- 
μάτων τὰ δεσμὰ τοῖς ὑπευθύνοις. 

u Chrysostom. Hom. xxx. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 294, D 9.) 
Τοὺς τὸ δεσμωτήριον οἰκοῦντας ἀφιᾶσι τῶν δεσμῶν, καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν 
ἀνθρωπίνην μιμοῦνται τὸν ἑαυτῶν δεσπότην᾽ καθάπερ γὰρ αὐτός, φησι, τοῦ 
χαλεποῦ δεσμωτηρίου τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἡμᾶς ἀνίησι, καὶ τῶν μυρίων 
ἀγαθῶν παρέχει τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν" τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ ἡμᾶς προσήκει, 
οἷς δυνάμεθα μιμητὰς γενέσθαι τῆς τοῦ Δεσπότου φιλανθρωπίας. 


112 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


ow 


both titles : “The imperial letters,” says he*, ‘are sent forth, 
commanding all prisoners to be loosed from their bonds. For 
as our Lord, when he was ἐν ἄδου, ‘in hell,’ or ‘the state and 
place of the dead,’ set at liberty all that were under the power 
of death ; so his servants, contributing what they were able, 
in imitation of the mercy of their Lord, loose men from these 
visible bonds, having no power to loose them from those which 
are spiritual and invisible.” Whence we may observe, that 
these indulgences of the princes, were not designed to make 
men believe they were cleared either of the guilt or infamy of 
their crimes, but only freed from the punishment that was due 
to them. Both the guilt and scandal still remained upon 
them, and the very indulgence itself was a note of infamy, 
implying that they had done something that needed such a 
pardon. And, for this reason, these indulgences were never 
granted promiscuously to whole bodies of men; because that 
would have been to have set a mark of infamy and condemn- 
ation upon the innocent as well as the guilty; as Valentinian 
once told the senate’, when they petitioned for a general act 
of grace to be granted to their whole body for the sake of a 
few offenders in it. He assured them, he was ready to pardon 
any particular members among them; but to grant a general 
indulgence to the senate, was to defame the senate without 
reason ; since every indulgence set a mark upon those whom 
it freed: and did not erase the infamy of the crime, but 
only relax the punishment. For as one of the old poets said 
well, — 
* Poona potest demi, culpa perennis erit.” 


‘The punishment may be remitted; but the crime, both in 


* Ibid. Hom. in Psalm. exlv. (Bened. vol. v. p. 526, C6.) Βασιλικὰ κατα- 
πέμπονται γράμματα λέγοντα, Τοὺς τὸ δεσμωτήριον οἰκοῦντας ἀφίεσθαι τῶν 
δεσμῶν" καθάπερ γὰρ ὁ Δεσπότης ἡμῶν, ἐν ἅδου γενόμενος, τοὺς κατεχομέ- 
vouc ὑπὸ τοῦ θανάτου πάντας ἀπέλυσεν" οὕτω δὴ καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι, τὰ κατὰ 
δύναμιν εἰσφέροντες, καὶ τὴν δεσποτικὴν μιμούμενοι φιλανθρωπίαν, δεσμῶν 
ἀπολύουσι τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἐπειδὴ τῶν νοητῶν οὐκ ἰσχύουσιν. 

¥ Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxxviii. de Indulgent. Criminum, leg. v. (Lugdun. 
vol. iii. p. 274.) Indulgentia, patres conscripti, quos liberat, notat; nec infamiam 
criminis tollit, sed poenze gratiam facit: in uno hoc, aut in duobus reis ratum 
sit: qui indulgentiam senatui dat, damnat senatum. 


Cuar. V. § 7. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 113 


its guilt and scandal, will remain upon men for ever,’ notwith- 
standing any such human acts of grace, unless they take some 
proper methods to sue out a Divine pardon. However, the 
emperors were willing to grant what indulgence they could to 
men’s bodies at this holy festival, that criminals might partake 
of their clemency shown in imitation of their Lord, and use 
the opportunity to do something more for themselves, by 
having recourse to heaven as penitents; and applying to the 
throne of grace for a more effectual pardon. 


Secr. VII.—At this Time also, it was more usual than ordi- 
narily for Men to show their Charity to Slaves by granting 
them their Freedom. 


We may observe further, out of the forementioned place 
of Gregory Nyssen, that it was usual at this time not only to 
release criminals out of prison by a public act of state, but for 
private men also to show their charity to their fellow-creatures, 
by granting slaves their manumission or freedom, as a proper 
expression of mercy becoming this holy festival, which brought 
a general redemption from slavery, and universal liberty to 
mankind, by our Saviour’s resurrection. And that there 
might be no clog or impediment to this good disposition cast 
in men’s way, to hinder this kind of charity, the law provided, 
that though all other kinds of legal processes should cease for 
the whole week following this festival, yet whatever was neces- 
sary to be done by way of charity for the manumission of slaves, 
should be allowed of, as comporting with the true intent and 
design of this holy solemnity. This we learn from a law of 
Theodosius, in the Justinian Code, which says’, ‘‘ Let all actions 
at law, whether public or private, cease in the fifteen Paschal 
days, that is, in the week before and the week after Easter 
Sunday. Yet all men have liberty at this time, to grant free- 
dom to their slaves; and whatever acts are necessary to be 
done in law, to promote this end, are not prohibited.” This is 


2 Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Feriis, leg. viii. (Amstel. 1673. p. 69.) Actus 
omnes, seu publici sunt seu privati, diebus quindecim Paschalibus conquiescant. 
In his tamen et emancipandi et manumittendi cuncti licentiam habeant: et 
super his acta non prohibeantur. 


VOL. Vill: I 


114 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


the same exception that Constantine had made before with 
respect to the Lord’s-day*, on which all proceedings at law 
were prohibited, except such as were matters of absolute neces- 
sity or great charity; among which he reckons the manu- 
mission of slaves, which therefore was allowed at any time: as 
has been shown before in speaking of the Lord’s-day. 


Secr. VIII.—And to the Poor by liberal Donations. 


But this was not the only instance of their charity at this 
holy season. For they were ambitious, at this time especially, 
to show their liberality to the poor; nothing being thought 
more congruous and suitable to the occasion than for men to 
make the hearts of the poor rejoice, at a time when they 
remembered the common fountain of their mercies, as Com- 
modian words it in his Instructions®. ‘‘ Upon this account,” 
Eusebius tells us*, ‘Constantine was used, as soon as the 
morning of Haster-day appeared, to open his hand in liberality 
to all nations, provinces, and people ; bestowing rich gifts upon 
them, in imitation of the beneficence of the common Saviour of 
mankind.” 


ὅπου. IX.—The whole Week after Easter-Day celebrated with 
Sermons, Communions, &c., as Part of the same Festival. 


Neither did they confine their acts of piety and devotion to 
Easter-day, but kept the whole week following in the strictest 
manner, as part of the same festival; holding religious assem- 
blies every day, not only for prayer, but for preaching and 
receiving the communion also. This is evident in part from 
what has been observed in the beginning of this chapter 


a Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. i. See before, ch. ii. sect. ii. 
note (s). 
b Commodian. Instruct. c. xxv. (Maxima Bibl. V. P. vol. xxvii. p. 21.) 
Congruit in Pascha, die felicissimo nostro ; 
Leetentur et illi, qui postulant sub acta Divina: 
Erogetur eis, quod sufficit, vinum et esca. 
¢ Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iv. ο. xxii. (Reading, 1720. p. 637.) (Vales. p. 443, 
Α 9.) Διαλαβούσης δὲ τῆς ἕω, τὰς σωτηρίους εὐεργεσίας μιμούμενος, πᾶσιν 
ἔθνεσιν λαοῖς τε καὶ δήμοις τὴν εὐεργετικὴν ἐξήπλου δεξιὰν, πλούσια πάντα 
τοῖς πᾶσι δωρούμενος. 


Car. V. ὃ 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 115 


(sect. 1.), that the Paschal solemnity, in its full extent, in- 
cluded fifteen days, or two whole weeks, the one before, and 
the other after, Easter-day. Concerning that which followed 
after (and of that we are only speaking here), Chrysostom 
says plainly ἃ, that they had sermons every day throughout the 
whole week. ‘ For seven days together we hold religious 
assemblies, and prepare a spiritual table for you, making you 
partakers of the Divine oracles, and every day anointing you” 
(he means with the spiritual unction of instruction), ‘‘ and 
arming you against the devil.” A little after, he says again, 
‘“‘ Seven days together ye have preaching, that ye may learn 
perfectly to wrestle with your enemy.” And he calls the 
whole solemnity a ‘spiritual marriage,’ which, after the man- 
ner of other marriage solemnities, lasted seven days. Upon 
this account, the author of the Constitutions ® requires ser- 
vants to rest from their labour this whole week, that they 
might attend sermons and other offices of Divine service. The 
same is required in the second Council of Mascon‘: “ On 
those six most holy days, let no one presume to do any servile 
labour ; but let all, with one consent, attend the service of the 
Paschal festival, and persevere in offering up their daily sacri- 
fices, praising him who created and redeemed us, both evening 
and morning, and at noon-day.” And to the same purpose 
the Council of Trullo%: ‘“* From the holy day of the resur- 


ἃ Chrysostom. Hom. xxxiv. de Resurrect. Christi. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. 
Ρ. 445, Β 6.) Διὰ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἐφεξῆς σύναξιν ἐπιτελοῦμεν, THY πνευ- 
ματικὴν ὑμῖν παρατιθέμενοι τράπεζαν ποιοῦντες ὑμᾶς ἀπολαύειν θείων 
λογίων. Διὰ τοῦτο ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἐφεξῆς ἀπολαύετε διδασκαλίας, ὥστε ἀκριβῶς 
μαθεῖν τὰ παλαίσματα. 

€ Constitut. lib. viii. c. xxxiii. (Labbe, νοὶ]. 1. p. 498, D 6.) Τὴν μεγάλην 
ἑβδομάδα πᾶσαν, καὶ τὴν per αὐτὴν apyeirwoay ot δοῦλοι, ὅτι ἡ μὲν πάθους 
ἐστὶν, ἡ δὲ ἀναστάσεως" καὶ χρεία διδασκαλίας, τίς ὁ παθὼν καὶ ἀναστὰς, 
ἢ τίς ὁ συγχωρήσας, ἢ καὶ ἀναστήσας. 

f Cone. Matiscon. II. ο. ii. (Labbe, vol. ν. p. 981.) Sanctissimis 1115. sex die- 
bus nemo servile opus audeat facere; sed omnes simul coadunati, hymnis Pas- 
chalibus indulgentes, perseverationis nostree preesentiam quotidianis sacrificiis 
ostendamus, laudantes Creatorem ac Regeneratorem nostrum vespere, et mane, 
et meridie. 

& Cone. Trul. ec. Ixvi. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1171.) ᾿Απὸ τῆς ἁγίας ἀναστασίμου 
Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας μέχρι τῆς καινῆς κυριακῆς, τὴν ὅλην ἑβδο- 
μάδα ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις ἐκκλησίαις σχολάζειν δεῖ ἀπαραλείπτως τοὺς πιστοὺς, 


1. 


116 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


rection of Christ our God ‘to new Sunday,’ μέχρι τῆς καινῆς 
κυριακῆς, all the faithful ought to spend their time at church, 
and exercise themselves incessantly the whole week in psalms, 
and hymns, and spiritual songs, rejoicing in Christ, and cele- 
brating the festival by attending on the reading of the holy 
mysteries. For so we shall rise with Christ, and be exalted 
with him. Therefore let neither horse-racing, nor any other 
public games or shows, be performed on these days.” 


Secr. X.—All Public Games prohibited during this whole 
Season. 


What this Council here forbids under the name of public 
games, is agreeable to former imperial laws, which prohibited 
them not only on Easter-day, as being one of the Lord’s-days, 
but extended the prohibition to the whole week after. For 
so Theodosius Junior had expressly determined ἃ, that at 
Easter and Pentecost, all public games and pleasures, both of 
the theatre and circus, should universally be denied to the peo- 
ple, during the whole time that the newly baptized wore their 
white and shining garments, representing the light of their 
heavenly washing (that is, till the Sunday following, which, as 
we shall see by and by, was the conclusion of this festival) : 
and the reason of this prohibition is there given; because, 
during this season, the minds of Christians ought wholly to be 
employed in the worship of God. And the prohibition extends 
also to Jews and Gentiles, who are so far obliged to pay a 
respect to this holy time, as to know how to make a distinction 
between days of supplication and days of pleasure. 


ἐν ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾧδαῖς πνευματικαῖς εὐφραινομένους ἐν Χριστῷ 
καὶ ἑορτάζοντας, καὶ τῇ τῶν θείων γραφῶν ἀναγνώσει προσέχοντας, καὶ 
τῶν ἁγίων μυστηρίων κατατρυφῶντας" ἐσόμεθα γὰρ οὕτω Χριστῷ συναν- 
tordpevol τε καὶ συνανυψούμενοι' μηδαμῶς οὖν ἐν ταῖς προκειμέναις ἡμέραις 
ἱπποδρομία ἢ ἑτέρα δημώδης θέα ἐπιτελείσθω. 

h Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectac. leg. vy. See above, ch. ii. sect. iv. 
note (y). 


Cuar. V. § 11. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 117 


Sect. XI.—And all proceedings at Law, except in some special 
and extraordinary Cases. 


And for the same reason, all proceedings at law were pro- 
hibited at this season, except in some special and extraordinary 
eases. As the case of manumission of slaves, which being a 
case of great charity, was allowed at all seasons ; as has been 
noted before‘, out of Gregory Nyssen, and a law of Theodosius, 
which allows and confirms all acts of law that were necessary 
to be done in order to set slaves at liberty, and give them 
their freedom. And a like exception was made by Theodosius 
Junior and Honorius), in the case of trying pirates, because 
this was necessary to be done immediately for the sake of the 
public safety: and therefore the examination of such criminals 
was allowed in Lent, and on the Easter festival. But except- 
ing such cases of necessity and charity, all other actions at 
law were entirely superseded at this time, in honour of the 
Paschal festival. There are laws of Theodosius, in both the 
Codes, to this purpose *, “" That the whole fifteen days of the 
Paschal solemnity, that is, the week before Easter-day, called 
‘the great week in Lent,’ and the week following, should be 
times of perfect vacation from all actions and business of the 
law ; the forementioned cases only excepted.” And they are 
often mentioned and referred to by St. Austin ', Chrysostom, 
and others, who need not here be repeated, because they have 
been alleged before, upon other oceasions, in this chapter 
(sects. i. and vi.) 


i See sect. vi. and vii. of this chapter. 

} Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit.xxxv. de Quzestionibus, leg. vii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iii. 
p- 255.) Provinciarum judices moneantur, ut in Isaurorum latronum quzestioni- 
bus, nullum quadragesimz, nec venerabilem Pascharum diem existiment exci- 
Tbid. lib. xiii. 
tit. v. de Naviculariis, leg. xxxviii. (v. 90.) Hujusmodi igitur inquisitio etiam 


piendum, ne differatur sceleratorum proditio consiliorum, ete. 





diebus feriatis et devotionum, absque ulla observatione, peragenda est. 

k Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (vol. i. p. 121.) Sanctos quoque 
Paschie dies, qui septeno vel preecedunt numero vel sequuntur, in eadem obser- 
vatione numeramus. Vid. Cod. Justin. de Feriis, leg. ii. vii. viii. 

1 Aug. Serm. xix. inter editos a Sirmondo. See sect. i. of this chap. note (e), 
p- 88. Chrysostom. Hom. xxx. in Genes. et in Psalm. exlyv. See pp. 111, 
112, notes (1) ἃ (x). 








118 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


Secr. XI1.—The Sunday after Easter, commonly called Domi- 
nica Nova, avd Dominica in Albis, observed with great 
Solemnity as the Conclusion of the Paschal Festival. 


Neither need I remark here, that Easter was the most noted 
and solemn time of baptism in the Church, because of this the 
reader has had a particular account before in treating of bap- 
tism: but I only observe, that the Sunday after Easter, which 
was the conclusion of the Paschal feast, was usually observed 
with great solemnity. For on this day the neophytes, or per- 
sons newly baptized, were wont to lay aside their white gar- 
ments, and commit them to the repository of the Church. 
Whence, as it was sometimes called the octaves of Easter, as 
being the conclusion of the Paschal festival; so more com- 
monly it was known by the name of “ Dominica in Albis,’ ‘the 
Sunday of Albes, or white garments.’ Under which deno- 
minations we meet with it several times in St. Austin, in his 
sermons upon this day : some of which are said to be preached 
‘Dominica in octavis Pasche ™, and others ‘ Dominica in 
Albis,’ if any stress is to be laid upon the titles, which, 
perhaps, may be added by other writers about the time of 
Charles the Great, in whose days these were the common 
appellations among all the ritualists of the Latin Church°. 
But the Greek writers give it another name, viz. καινὴ κυριακὴ;» 

‘or διακαινήσιμος». the * New Sunday.’ Under which title 
Nazianzen? and Chrysostom have sermons upon it; and the 
Council of Trullo mentions it under the same denomination 4, 
saying, “ From the day of the Lord’s resurrection to the new 
Lord’s-day, men shall attend at church to singing, reading the 
Scriptures, and participating of the holy mysteries.” It was 
so called from the renovation of men by the new birth of bap- 


m Aug. Serm. de Tempore, elx. clxii. clxiii. clxiv. (Bened. 1679. vol. v. 
pp. 1468. 968. & append. pp. 296. 292.) 

n Tbid. Serm. xix. ex editis a Sirmondo.+ (See Bened. 1679. vol. v. pp. 1468. 
1059. & append. p. 296.) 

© Vid. Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. v. 6. xii. 

P Nazianz. Orat. xliii. (Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 835.) Εἰς τὴν καινὴν κυρι- 
ακήν. Chrysostom. Hom. evi. in Dom. Noy. (tom. vii. edit. Savil. p. 575.) 

4 Conc. Trul. c. xvi. See before, § 10. note (g), p. 115. 





Cuap. VI. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 119 


tism: being the close of the great festival of Easter, at which 
they were baptized, and born anew of water and the Holy 
Ghost, and then clothed in new and white garments, emblems 
of their new light and birth: which being laid aside again the 
Sunday following, the day was called the ‘new Lord’s-day,’ 
from the whole action that went before it: as the six days of 
the week preceding it were called ‘dies Neophytorum,’ ‘the 
days of the Neophytes,’ or newly baptized, for the same reason: 
as we find in St. Austin’; who, speaking of the time from 
Easter Sunday to the Sunday following, inclusively, styles it 
‘octo dies Neophytorum,’ ‘ the eight days of Neophytes,’ 
taking both Sundays into the number. 


CHAPTER VI. 


OF PENTECOST, OR WHITSUNTIDE. 


Sect. I.—Pentecost taken in a double Sense among the Ancients. 
First, For the fifty Days between Easter and Whitsuntide ; 
and, Secondly, For the single Day of Pentecost. 


Tux next great festival was that of Pentecost, which is taken 
in a double sense among the ancients. For sometimes it sig- 
nifies the whole space of fifty days between Easter and Whit- 
suntide, which was one continued festival; and sometimes it 
was taken, in a more restrained sense, for that particular time 
which was set aside for the commemoration of the descent of 
the Holy Ghost upon the apostles. In the former acceptation, 
Tertullian speaks of 105, when he tells the Christians, by way 


τ Aug.,Epist. exix. ad Jan. ¢. xvii. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 106, F 3.) Ut quadra- 
ginta illi dies ante Pascha observentur, ecclesize consuetudo roboravit, sic etiam 
ut octo dies Neophytorum distinguantur a ceteris, id est, ut octavus primo con- 
cinat. 

a Tertul. de Idol. ο. xiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 94, B 5.) Ethnicis semel annuus 
dies quisque festus est: tibi octavus quisque dies (7. ὁ. dies Dominicus). Excerpe 
singulas solennitates nationum, et in ordinem exsere, Pentecosten implere non 
poterunt. 


120 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 
of triumph over the heathens, that the heathen festivals were 
but a single day in the return of every year. But the Chris- 
tians had a festival every eighth day, meaning the Lord’s-day : 
and, besides that, they had one continued festival of fifty days, 
which was more than all the festivals the heathen could pre- 
tend to reckon up in a whole year. So again he says, in 
another place”, “That Pentecost was a large space of time 
appointed by the Church for administering of baptism ; during 
which season the resurrection of the Lord was frequently 
demonstrated to the disciples, and the grace of the Holy 
Ghost was first poured out upon them.” Where, it is plain, 
he takes Pentecost not barely for the day on which the Holy 
Ghost descended on the apostles, but for the whole time that 
our Saviour conversed amongst his disciples, to give them 
proof of his resurrection. Therefore, though Vicecomes® re- 
prehends Ludovicus Vives for asserting this, yet Habertus 
defends him out of these places of Tertullian*; and Dr. Cave®, 
and other learned men, are of the same opinion. Particularly 
Gothofred takes a great deal of pains to prove this to be the 
meaning of ‘ Quinquagesima,’ which is the Latin name for 
‘Pentecost,’ in that famous law of Theodosius Junior’, where 


Ὁ Thbid. de Bapt. c. xix. (Paris. 1664. p. 232, A.) Diem baptismo solenniorem 
Pascha preestat. Exinde Pentecoste ordinandis lavacris latissimum spatium 
est, quo et Domini resurrectio inter discipulos frequentata est, et gratia Spiritus 
Sancti dedicata, ete. Vid. Can. Apostol. xxxvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 33.) et 
c. xx. Cone. Antioch. : where mention is made of the fourth week in Pentecost. 

¢ Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 1. 6. xxv. Neque adsentior Ludovico Vivi, 
qui in Grammatice ludo edoctus, S. Augustini libros de Civitate Dei exponere 
parum feliciter adgressus est. Is enim (nota (k), in cap. viii. lib. xxii.) a 
Paschate ad Pentecosten, baptismum quotidie administrari solitum, nullo auc- 





tore adfirmat. 

d Habert. Archicrat. part. viii. Observat. iv. p. 134. Immerito Josephus 
Vicecomes, opere de Baptismi Ritibus, sugillat Ludovicum Vivem, quod dixerit 
id moris fuisse, ut toto illo temporis decursu a Pascha ad Pentecosten baptizare- 
tur: nullo, inquit, auctore. Sed nos auctorem illi subministramus, Tertullianum, 
lib. de Baptismo, ad fin.; Deum solenniorem, etc. See preceding note (b). 

€ Cave’s Primitive Christianity. (Lond. 1682. p. 307.) When I say that these 
were the two fixed times of Baptism, I do not strictly mean it of the precise 
days of Easter and Whitsuntide, but also of the whole intermediate space of 
fifty days between them. 

f Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectaculis, leg. v. (Lugd. 1665. vol. v. 
p. 303.) Paschze etiam et Quinquagesimze diebus (quamdiu ccelestis lumen 


Cuap. VI. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 12] 


ow 


he prohibits all public games and sports during the solemnities 
of Easter and Pentecost, which solemnities are there described 
by these two circumstances or characters: first, that the neo- 
phytes then laid aside their white and bright garments, repre- 
senting the new light and brightness of their holy and heavenly 
washing ; and, secondly, that at this season the Acts of the 
Apostles, called the ‘ Apostolical Passions,’ were read, in com- 
memoration and confirmation of the great doctrine of Chris- 
tianity,—our Lord’s resurrection. 


Sect. I1.—During which Time the Church chiefly exercised her- 
self in reading and meditating upon the Acts of the Apostles, 
as the great Confirmation of our Lord’s Resurrection. 


The latter of these circumstances is a peculiar characteristic, 
not of any single day, but of the whole time between Easter 
and Whitsuntide, durmg which time it was customary in the 
Church to read the Acts of the Apostles, as we learn from 
several passages in Chrysostom, which plainly show, that he 
takes Pentecost for the whole fifty days between EKaster-day 
and Whit-Sunday. One of his homilies is chiefly spent in 
giving an answer to this question’, Why the Acts of the 
Apostles are read in Pentecost? The sermon itself bears this 
title; and, in answer to the question, he says, that on every 
festival such portions of Scripture were read as particularly 
related to that festival, Thus on the day of our Saviour’s 
passion all such scriptures were read, as had any relation to 
the cross; on the great Sabbath, or Saturday before Easter, 
they read all such portions of Scripture as contained the his- 
tory of his being betrayed, crucified, dead, and buried; on 
Kaster-day they read such passages as gave an account of his 
resurrection. But then it seemed a difficulty, why the Acts of 
the Apostles, which contain the history of their miracles done 


lavacri imitantia novum sancti baptismatis lucem vestimenta testantur: quo 
tempore et commemoratio apostolicze passionis, totius Christianitatis magistre, 
a cunctis jure celebratur), omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate populis 
denegata, ete. 

& Chrysostom. Hom. Ixiii. Cur in Pentecoste Acta legantur. See Book xiv. 
chap. iii. sect. iii. notes (z and a), vol. iv. pp. 478, 479. 


122 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


after Pentecost, should be read in this interval, before Pente- 
cost was fully ended. To this he answers, ‘‘ That the miracles 
of the apostles, contained in that book, were the great demon- 
stration of our Saviour’s resurrection: and therefore the 
Church appointed that book to be read always immediately 
after our Saviour’s resurrection, to give men the evidences and 
proofs of that holy mystery which was the completion of their 
redemption.” And hence it became a standing rule over the 
whole Church to read the Acts in these fifty days of Pente- 
cost, as appears from many other places of Chrysostom, Aus- 
tin', Cassianj, and the fourth Council of Toledo ΚΕ: which, 
because I have had occasion to recite at large in a former 
Book', I forbear to repeat in this place. 


Secr. IIl.—Ad/ Fasting and Kneeling at Prayers prohibited 
at this Season, as on the Lord’s-Day. 


During this season, likewise, they generally prohibited all 
fasting and kneeling at prayers, as on the Lord’s-day, because 
at this time they more especially celebrated with joy the 
memorial of our Saviour’s resurrection. This is plain from 
those words of Tertullian™: “* We count it unlawful to fast, 
or to worship kneeling on the Lord’s-day ; and we enjoy the 
same immunity from Easter to Pentecost.” Epiphanius says 
the same", that though the ascetics of the Church fasted on 
the stationary days, that is, Wednesdays and Fridays, or 
other times, yet they neither fasted nor kneeled on the Lord’s- 
day, or the whole fifty days of Pentecost. And this custom 


h Thid. Hom. xxxiii. in Genes. See Book xiii. chap. vi. sect. ii. note (h), 
vol. iv. p. 273. Hom. xlvii. See Book xiv. chap. iii. sect. iii. vol. iv. p. 478. 
Hom. xlviii. in Inscriptionem Altaris, act. xvii. See vol. iv. p. 480. 

i Aug. Tract. vi. in Joan. See vol. iv. p- 478. Homil. Ixxxiii. de diversis. 

J Cassian. Institut. lib. ii. 6. vi. See vol. iv. Ρ. 406. 

Κ΄ Cone. Tolet. IV. 6. xvii. See vol. iv. p. 480. 

1 Book xiv. chap. iii. sect. iii. vol. iv. Ρ. 477. 

m Tertul. de Coron. Milit. ¢. iii. (Paris. 1664. p. 102, A 8.) Die Dominico, 
jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Eadem immunitate a die 
Paschee in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. 

» Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. n. xxii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 1105, A 2.) ... δίχα 
μόνης τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ὕλης THY πεντήκοντα ἡμερῶν, ἐν αἷς οὔτε γονυ- 








κλισίαι γίνονται, οὔτε νηστεία προστέτακται. 
4) 
oO 


Cuar. VI. καὶ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 123 


about kneeling was made a standing rule by the Council of 
Nice: “‘ For whereas,” say they®, ““ there are some who kneel 
on the Lord’s-day, and the fifty days of Pentecost ; that a 
uniform way of worship may be observed in all Churches, it 
seems good to the holy synod, that prayer be made to God 
standing.” Yet all Churches did not exactly conform to this 
rule, nor observe these customs so precisely in Pentecost as 
they did on the Lord’s-day. For St. Austin says?, “ He was 
not certain that these things were in use in all Churches, 
either in Pentecost or the Lord’s-day.” And Cassian says 
more expressly, ‘* That in the monasteries of Syria they had 
no great regard to this rule, which forbade kneeling at prayers, 
or fasting in Pentecost, though their neighbours, the Egyp- 
tians, were very precise and punctual in the observation of 
both those customs,” which made him more curious to inquire 
into the ground and reason of these observations: and their 
answer was", “ That this festival being kept in honour and 
memory of our Saviour’s resurrection, it was a time of more 
than ordinary joy ; and fasting and kneeling were incongruous 
at such a season, because they were indications of deep mourn- 
ing, and a more than ordinary repentance: therefore they nei- 
ther fasted nor prayed kneeling on these days, or the Lord’s- 
day, but sung praises and hallelujahs to God, in honour and 
thankfulness for our Saviour’s resurrection.” This custom of 


© Cone. Nic. 6. xx. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 37.) ᾿Επειδηὴ τινές εἰσιν ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ 
γόνυ κλίνοντες, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πεντηκοστῆς ἡμέραις, ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντα ἐν πάσῃ 
παροικίᾳ φυλάττεσθαι, ἑστῶτας ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδιδόναι 
τῷ Θεῷ. 

P Aug. Epist. οχῖχ. ad Januar. ὁ. xvii. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 106.) Ut 
stantes in illis diebus (Pentecostalibus) et omnibus Dominicis oremus, utrum 
ubique observetur ignoro; ete. 

4 Cassian. Collat. xxi. ¢. xi. (Lips. 1733. p. 461.) Ccepimus diligentius per- 
cunctari, cur apud Aigyptios tanta observantia caveretur, ne quis penitus totis 
Quinquagesimze diebus vel genua in oratione curvaret, vel usque ad horam 
nonam jejunare praesumeret: eoque id diligentius scrutabamur, quod nequa- 
quam hoe tanta cautione servari in Syric monasteriis videramus. 

r Cassian. Collat. xxi. ¢. xx. (Lips. 1733. p. 566.) Ideo in istis diebus nec 
genua in oratione curvantur, quia inflexio genuum velut poenitentize ac luctus 
indicium est. Unde etiam per omnia eamdem in illis solennitatem, quam die 
Dominica custodimus, in qua majores nostri nee jejunium agendum, nec genu 
esse flectendum, ob reyerentiam resurrectionis Dominicze tradiderunt. 


124. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


singing hallelujah in many Churches was peculiar to this sea- 
son; but in some Churches it was used upon other occasions : 
of which the reader may find a full account in a former Book®, 
where we treat of the psalmody of the Church. 


Secr. 1V.—And all Public Games and Stage Plays; but not 
Pleading at Law forbidden, or bodily Labour. 


To proceed with the present festival, we may observe fur- 
ther, that it was of so great esteem and veneration, that Theo- 
dosius Junior, a pious prince, thought it proper to forbid all 
public games and diversions, as well of the theatre as the 
circus, during this whole season; because this was a time of 
more solemn worship, when the minds of Christians ought to 
be wholly employed in the service of God, and commemorating 
of those wonderful miracles that were wrought in confirmation 
of the Gospel by the hand of the apostles; as he words it in 
his law made for this purposet. But business of law and 
administration of justice was a more necessary thing than 
sports and pastimes ; and therefore there was no cessation of 
those enjoined at this season, but only in the first week after 
Kaster, which was reckoned into the Paschal festival. As 
soon as this was over, the law was open again, and all actions 
commenced afresh, as at other times, which is evident from 
that discourse of St. Austin, which he preached on the octaves 
of Kaster, or ‘ Dominica in Albis,’ where he says", ‘‘ The days 
of vacation are now past, and those of convening, exactions, 
and lawsuits, succeed in their room.” So that, in this respect, 
the remainder of these fifty days was inferior to the other 
great festivals; but this was the only thing in which there 
appears to be any distinction or difference in law made between 
them. And in regard to ecclesiastical affairs, they were ob- 
served with almost the same religious solemnity as the other 
festivals, as appears from what has now been said upon them : 


8 Book xiv. chap. ii. sect. iv. vol. iv. p. 458. 

t Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectaculis, leg. v. See above, chap. ii. 
sect. iv. note (z), p. 31. 

u Aug. Serm. xix. ex edit. a Sirmond. (Bened. 1679. vol. v. p. 1064.) Peracti 
sunt dies feriati, suecedent jam illi conventionum, exactionum, litigiorum. 


Cuap. VI. 8 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 125 


only some learned men make a just remark, that the observa- 
tion of this solemnity did not oblige men, especially those of 
the poorer sort, to a strict abstinence from bodily labour. For 
this was a rule only for the Lord’s-day, and some of the greater 
festivals, as appears from the author of the Constitutions ; 
who, speaking of the days on which servants were to rest from 
their labour”, mentions the Lord’s-day, and the Sabbath, and 
the Nativity of Christ, and Epiphany, and the great week in 
Lent, and Easter-week, and Ascension-day, and Pentecost, as 
it signifies the particular day of the descent of the Holy Ghost 
upon the apostles; but says nothing of Pentecost, in the larger 
acceptation, as it signifies the whole fifty days between Easter 
and Whitsuntide. The Council of Eliberis has a pretty severe 
canon against some* who kept Pentecost at a wrong season, 
not fifty, but forty days after Easter. But it does not clearly 
appear that they intended the whole fifty days should be ob- 
served, but only the particular day of Pentecost, as its proper 
season. Or, if they intended more, yet Albaspinzeus thinks 


w Constitut. lib. viii. ὁ. xxxiii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 498, D 12.) Τὴν πεντη- 
κοστὴν ἀργείτωσαν, διὰ τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, τὴν δωρη- 
θεῖσαν τοῖς πιστεύσασιν εἰς Χριστόν. 

x Cone. Illiber. ὁ. xliii. (Labbe, vol. i, p. 975.) Pravam institutionem emen- 
dari placuit juxta auctoritatem Scripturarum, ut cuncti diem Pentecostes post 
Pascha celebremus, non Quadragesimam sed [nisi] Quinquagesimam. Qui non 
fecerit, novam heeresin induxisse notetur. 

y Albaspin. in loc. (p. 1000.) Non omnino liquet hoe canone decretum, diem 
duntaxat Pentecostes, an quinquaginta post Pascha dies celebrandos: vulgaris 
lectio de solo Pentecostes die, emendata totos quinquaginta dies festivos haben- 
dos statuisse videtur, his adjectis, ‘ non Quadragesimam, nisi Quinquagesimam.’ 
Preeterea certum est superioribus temporibus Pentecostes, non unicum diem ; a 
Paschate ad Pentecosten totos dies a Christianis celebratos. Tertullianus : 
‘ Excerpe [easere] singulas festivitates nationum, vix Pentecosten implere pote- 
runt.’ Nicsenum quoque Concilium, eosdem quinquaginta dies solennes fuisse 
indicat, vetitis adgeniculationibus. Quapropter in eam potius sententiam hune 
canonem acciperem, ut dies quinquaginta, quam unicum Pentecostes diem 
observandum statuat; verum qua cerimonia quinquaginta illi dies traduceren- 
tur, non liquet: non cessatione operarum; neque enim credibile videbitur, 
tenuiorum sane et inopum causa; quos ab intermissione laboris Pagani facile 
internoscere potuissent ; quapropter potius existimarim, quantum ego conjicere 
possum, dies illos celebrari et agitari consuevisse, publicis de more missarum 
sacrificiis, eucharistice quoque sumptione sanctissime obita, aut elogiis recitan- 
dis. Addo etiam commune quoddam et publicum gaudium, quo elati jejunare 


126 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


~ 


they made no rule about keeping these days as days of perfect 
vacation from bodily labour; but only days of relaxation from 
fasting and kneeling, and days of public joy and thanksgiving, 
and holding religious assemblies for prayer, and receiving the 
eucharist, which probably was administered every day during 
this whole season. And in these things consisted the observa- 
tion of Pentecost in this larger acceptation. 


Secr. V.—Of Ascension-Day, its Antiquity and 
Observation. 


In the course of this long-continued festival of Pentecost 
we are to take more special notice of one particular day, before 
we come to Whit-Sunday : that is, of the feast of our Saviour’s 
Ascension or Assumption into heaven. The observation of 
this festival was so ancient, that St. Austin could derive its 
original from no other fountain, but either apostolical insti- 
tution, or the general agreement of the Church in some plenary 
council. ‘‘ For those things,” says he*, “‘ which are received 
and observed over all the world, not as written in Scripture, 
but as handed down to us by tradition, we conceive to be 
either instituted by the apostles themselves, or some numerous 
councils, whose authority is of very great use in the Church. 
Such are the anniversary solemnities of our Saviour’s Passion, 
and Resurrection, and Ascension into heaven, and the coming 
of the Holy Ghost from heaven.” It is certain, therefore, the 
feast of Ascension was generally observed all over the Church 
long before St. Austin’s time. Chrysostom often speaks of it 
under the name of ἀνάληψις, or our Lord’s Assumption into 
heaven. For not to mention those two sermons in Sir H. 
Savil’s edition upon the Ascension*, which are reckoned spu- 


desinerent, Deumque stantes, omissa genuflectione, laudibus et hymnis extolle- 
rent, et benedicerent. 

* Aug. Epist. exviii. ad Januarium. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 93, F nT) es 
quze non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quze quidem toto terrarum orbe ser- 
vantur, datur intelligi vel ab ipsis apostolis, vel plenariis Conciliis, quorum est 
in ecclesia saluberrima auctoritas, commendata atque statuta retineri, sicut 
quod Domini Passio, et Resurrectio, et Adscensio in celum, et adventus de 
ewlo Spiritus Sancti, anniversaria solennitate celebrantur. 

4 Chrysostom. Hom. Ixiii. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 447.) Εἰς τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ 


Cuap. VI. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 127 


~ 


rious, he has one upon the Assumption?, the credit of which 
was never called in question, wherein he styles this festival 
“the illustrious and refulgent day of our Lord’s Assumption 
into heaven.” And in another homily upon Whit-Sunday*, 
recounting the great solemnities that had just gone before, he 
says, ‘‘ We have lately celebrated our Saviour’s Passion, his 
Resurrection, and then his ἄνοδον εἰς οὐρανὸν, ‘his return to 
heaven ;’” that is, the feast of his Ascension. In like manner 
the author of the Constitutions puts Ascension-day into the 
number of the great Christian festivals’, because on this day 
our Saviour’s economy on earth was completed. Among the 
Cappadocians the day was called ‘ Hpisozomene:’ for so Leo 
Allatius® tells us he found it noted in a manuscript of Gregory 
Nyssen’s works. And one of Chrysostom’s homilies is said to 
be preached Κυριακῇ σωζομένης ἷ, or ᾿Επισωζομένης, which the 
curators of Sir H. Savil’s edition take to be ‘Dominica in 
Albis, or ‘the Sunday after Easter ;’ but Suicerus® and Alla- 
tius understand it of the Sunday after Ascension-day, which 
from thence took its denomination. Why Ascension-day was 
so called, it is not very easy to conjecture. Perhaps it might 
be, because by our Saviour’s assumption into heaven again, the 





Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Et Hom. Ixiv. (Savil. vol. vii. p. 466.) Εἰς 
τὴν ἁγίαν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Xprorov.+ 

b Tbid. Hom. xxxv. in Adsumt. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 447.) Νῦν ὅτε τοῦ σταυ- 
ρωθέντος τὴν ἀνάληψιν ἄγομεν, τὴν φαιδρὰν ταύτην Kai ἐξαστράπτουσαν 
ἡμέραν. 

ς Ibid. Hom. ii. in Pentecost. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 469, A 3.) Πρῶτον 
piv οὖν ἑορτάσαμεν τὸν σταυρὸν, τὸ πάθος, τὴν ἀνάστασιν, μετὰ ταῦτα 
τὴν εἰς οὐρανὸν ἄνοδον τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 

ἃ Constitut. lib. viii. c. xxxiii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 497.) Τὴν ἀνάληψιν ἀργεί- 
τωσαν, διὰ τὸ πέρας τῆς κατὰ Χριστὸν οἰκονομίας. 

e Allat. de Domiriicis et Hebdomad. Greecor. sect. xxviii. Ascensio quoque 
Domini apud Cappadoces ᾿Επισωζομένη dicebatur. Erat adnotatum in manu- 
seripto codice Gregorii Nysseni: Τῷ ἐπιχωρίῳ τῶν Καππαδοκῶν ἔθει ’Em- 
σωζομένη λέγεται ἡ ἀνάληψις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Legiturque 
inter Andriantas Chrysostomi Homilia, Τῇ κυριακῇ τῆς ᾿Επισωζομένης. Latinis 
hee Dominica est, ‘ quinta post Pascha.’? Hebdomas ἰδίῳ ἀναλήψιμος, a fes- 
tivitate ἀναλήψεως, vocatur a Theodoro Studita. 

f Chrysostom. Hom. xix. ad Popul. Antioch. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 188.) 
Τῇ κυριακῇ τῆς Σωζομένης πρὸς τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας. 

8. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. voce ἐπισωζομένη, pt. i. p. 1194. Quid ἐπισω- 
ζομένη sit, docet Leo Allatius de Dominicis, ete. See above, note (e). 


128 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


whole economy of his incarnation and the world’s redemption 
was now completed, as the author of the Constitutions words 
it. And Chrysostom, much after the same manner, says", 
“On this day, God and man were reconciled together; on 
this day, that ancient enmity was destroyed, and that long 
war ended; on this day, an admirable and unexpected peace 
was restored to us. After God in his anger had destroyed 
man and beast from off the earth by a universal deluge, we 
that were unworthy of the earth were this day exalted to 
heaven ; we that were not worthy to reign below, were advanced 
to a kingdom above. We ascended above the heavens, and 
took possession of a royal throne; and that nature of ours, 
against which the cherubims were set to guard Paradise, was 
this day set above the cherubims.” He means, that Christ, as 
the first-fruits of our nature in perfection, was exalted unto 
heaven ; and all his members insome measure now partake 
of that glory, and hope in due time to meet him in the clouds, 
and to be translated to the same place, whither their forerunner 
is gone before them. This is the best account I can give at 
present of the name ‘ Episozomene,’ and the application of it 
to the celebrated festival of our Saviour’s Ascension or Assump- 
tion into heaven. I need not stand now to inquire into the 
manner of its observation ; for, being in the midst of Pentecost, 
it certainly had all the solemnity that belonged to that festi- 
val, and never passed without a proper discourse, to excite 
men to elevate their souls, and ascend with Christ in heart 
and mind to heaven, in hopes of obtaining it as their proper 
mansion both for body and soul hereafter, to all eternity. 
But as for any such ridiculous pageantry as has been used in 
some places to represent Christ’s ascension in the Church, by 
drawing up an image of Christ to the roof of the Church, and 


h Chrysostom. Hom. in Adscens. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 448, E 8.) Σήμε- 
pov καταλλαγαὶ τῷ Θεῷ πρὸς τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γεγόνασι γένος. σήμερον 
ἡ χρονία ἔχθρα κατελύθη, καὶ ὁ μακρὸς πόλεμος" σήμερον εἰρήνη θαυμασία 
τις ἐπανῆλθεν, οὐδέποτε προσδοκηθεῖσα πρότερον' τίς γὰρ ἂν ἤλπισεν, ὅτι 
Θεὸς ἀνθρώπῳ καταλλάττεσθαι ἔμελλεν ; (P. 449, D 6.) ἡμεῖς, οἱ τῆς γῆς 
ἀνάξιοι φανέντες, σήμερον εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνήχθημεν᾽ οἱ μηδὲ τῆς κάτω ἀρχῆς 
ὄντες ἄξιοι, πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν ἀνέβημεν τὴν ἄνω" ὑπερέβημεν τοὺς οὐρα- 
νοὺς, ἐπιλαβόμεθα τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ βασιλικοῦ" καὶ ἡ φύσις, Ov ἣν ἐφύλαττε 
τὸν Παράδεισον τὰ Χερουβὶμ, αὕτη ἐπάνω τῶν Χερουβὶμ κάθηται σήμερον. 


Cnap. VI. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 129 


then casting down the image of Satan in flames, to represent 
his falling as lightning from heaven, with abundance more of 
the same kind (which the curious reader may find described by 
Hospinian, out of Naogeorgus'), the ancient Church was 
wholly a stranger to it; this being the invention of later ages, 
when superstitious ceremonies had debased religion into 
sport and ridicule, and made the great things of God’s law 
look more like ludicrous pomp and comedy, than venerable 
mysteries of the Christian faith. But I return to the ancient 
Church. 


Sect. VI.—Of Pentecost, in the strictest Sense, as denoting 
the Festival of the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the 
Apostles. 


The conclusion of this great festival season was Pentecost, 
taken in the stricter sense for that particular day commonly 
called Whit-Sunday, or Pentecost, when they commemorated 
the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles ; which hap- 
pening upon the day which the Jews called Pentecost, or the 
fiftieth day after the Passover (a day of great note among the 


i Hospin. de Festis Christian. p. 72. (p. 110, Genev. 1674.) In hoe Christi 
festo, quo memoria adscensionis Christi in ccelos, et complementi salutis ac 
redemtionis nostrze, celebrari debebat, multa ridicula, immo profana et impia, 
in papatu hodie fiunt, de quibus Thomas Naogeorgus, libro iv. Regni Pontificii 
ita canit : 

Post venit illa dies, superas qua Christus ad arces 
Scandit, quam celebrant itidem potuque ciboque 
Preelargo: qua cuique aliqua est comedenda volucris, 
Haud scio, quapropter. Post prandia templa petuntur. 
Truncus ibi, qui tempus ad hoe est visus in ara, 
In summum trahitur, demisso fune, lacunar, 
Coetu sacrificim deducente atque canente. 
Inde statim Satanze preeceps perturpis imago 
Dejicitur, nonnumquam ardens, diruptaque prorsus. 
Exspectant pueri cupide, virgisque jacentem 
Concidunt, lacerantque in parvas denique partes. 
Posthee dejicitur panis, quem barbara turba 
Nuncupat Oblatas: cui seepe admixta papyrus 
Imponit pueris: finiunt magno omnia risu. 
Ex laqueari etiam certa syphonibus arte 
Ejaculantur aquas, si quem tinxisse laborant, 
Atque ita finitur magno fabella cachinno. 

VOL. VII. K 


130 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Jews, both for the memorial of the law delivered at Mount 
Sinai, and also for the gathering and bringing in of their har- 
vest): it retained the same name of Pentecost among the 
Christians, though they kept it not as a Jewish feast, but 
only as a commemoration of the glorious effusion of the Spirit 
in the gift of tongues, and other miraculous powers, made at 
this time upon the disciples. Hence it had also the name of 
ἡμέρα Πνεύματος, ‘the day of the Holy Ghost,’ as we find in 
Nazianzen*, and others. And some learned men think! it was 
hence called Whit-Sunday, partly because of those vast diffu- 
sions of light and knowledge, which upon this day were shed 
upon the apostles, in order to the enlightening of the world; 
but, principally, because this being one of the stated times of 
baptism in the ancient Church, they who were baptized put on 
white garments, in token of that pure and innocent course of 
life they had now engaged in. The original of this feast is by 
some carried as high as the apostles. Epiphanius was of 
opinion™, that St. Paul meant it in those words, when he 
said, ‘‘ He hastened to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pente- 
cost” (Acts xx. 16). But because interpreters generally 
take that in another sense, we will lay no stress upon it. 
However it is certain this feast was observed in the time of 
Origen: for he speaks of it in his books against Celsus™, as 
does also Tertullian before him®, and Irenzeus before them 


k Nazianz. Orat. xliv. de Pentecost. (Paris. 1630. tom. i. p. 712.) Τίμησον 
THY ἡμέραν Tov Πνεύματος." 

1 Cave’s Primitive Christianity, part i. chap. vii. (London, 1682. p. 192.) 
This feast is, by us, styled ‘ Whit Sunday;’ partly because of those vast diffusions 
of light and knowledge, which upon this day were shed upon the apostles, in 
order to the enlightening of the world; but principally because this (as also 
Easter) being the stated time for baptism in the ancient Church, those who 
were baptized put on white garments, in token of that pure and innocent course 
of life they had now engaged in: this white garment they wore till the next 
Sunday after, and then laid it aside. 

m Epiphan. Heeres. Ixxv. Aerian. sect. vi. (Paris. 1682. vol. i. p. 910, B.) 
Kai φησιν, ἔσπευδεν, ὕπως ποιήσῃ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν εἰς ἹΤερουσαλήμ' ποίαν 
δὲ τὴν πεντηκοστὴν Παῦλος, εἰ μὴ πάσχα, ἐπετέλεσε ; 

n Origen. cont. Cels. lib. viii. (Cambr. 1677. p. 392.) ᾿Εὰν δὲ τις πρὸς ταῦτα 
ἀνθυποφέρῃ τὰ περὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κυριακῶν, ἢ παρασκευῶν, ἢ τοῦ πάσχα, 
ἢ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς; Ov ἡμερῶν γινόμενα, κ. T.X. 

© Tertul. de Idol. 6. xiv. See sect. i. note (a), p. 119. 


Cuapr. VI. ὃ 0. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 131 


both, in his book concerning Easter, as the author of the 
Questions, under the name of Justin Martyr, informs us ; where 
speaking of the custom of standing at prayers on the Lord’s- 
day and Pentecost, he says?, ‘‘ This custom obtained from the 
days of the apostles, as [renzeus, bishop of Lyons and Martyr, 
testifies in his book of Easter; where he also makes mention 
of Pentecost, in which we kneel not, because it is equivalent 
to the Lord’s-day, being a symbol of the Lord’s resurrection.” 
St. Austin says‘, ‘“‘ The law was written by the finger of God, 
and given to Moses on this day; and that was a type of the 
Holy Ghost, called the finger of God in the Gospel, which 
Christ promised to his disciples as a comforter, and sent to 
them on the fiftieth day after his passion and resurrection. 
And all such eminent facts, as were done upon certain days, 
were annually celebrated in the Church, that the anniversary 
feast might preserve the useful and necessary memorial of 
them.” This festival of Pentecost, in particular, was observed 
the whole week after, till the octaves, or Sunday following, 
without fasting or kneeling: and then the Church returned to 
her usual stationary fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays, and in 
some places a strict fast all the week succeeded this festival, 
as we learn from the second Synod of Tours™; but this was 
a new institution, as was also the Rogation-fast for three days 
in Ascension-week ; of which more hereafter, in their proper 
place. 


P Justin. Quest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. queest. exv. (Paris. 1742. append. 
p. 490.) "Ex τῶν ἀποστολικῶν δὲ χρόνων ἡ τοιαύτη συνήθεια ἔλαβε τὴν 
ἀρχὴν, καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος Εἰρηναῖος, ὁ μάρτυς καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λουγ- 
δούνου, ἐν τοῦ πάσχα λόγῳ, ἐν ᾧ μέμνηται καὶ περὶ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, ἐν 
ἢ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ, ἐπειδὰν ἰσοδυναμεῖ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κυριακῆς. 

4 Aug. cont. Faust. lib. xxxii. ¢, xii. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 323, D 4.) Pen- 
tecosten, id est, a passione et resurrectione Domini quinquagesimam diem cele- 
bramus, quo nobis Sanctum Spiritum Paracletum, quem promiserat misit: quod 
futurum etiam per Judzeorum Pascha significatum est, quum quinquagesimo 
die post celebrationem ovis oecisze, Moyses digito Dei scriptam legem accepit in 
monte. Legite Evangelium, et advertite ibi Spiritum Sanctum appellatum 
digitum Dei. Ea quippe anniversaria in ecclesia celebrantur, quee insigniter 
excellentia certis diebus facta sunt; ut eorum necessariam salubremque memo- 
riam festivitas concelebrata custodiat. 

¥ Cone, Turon. 11. 6. xviii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 856.) De Pascha usque ad 
Quinquagesimam, exceptis rogationibus, omni die fratribus prandium preepare- 
tur: post Quinquagesimam tota hebdomada exacte jejunetur, 

K 2 


132 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


CHAPTER VII. 


OF THE FESTIVALS OF THE APOSTLES AND MARTYRS. 


Sect. I.—The Original of the Festivals of Martyrs. 


We have hitherto considered those festivals which peculiarly 
related to our Lord’s economy on earth, and were observed 
over the whole Church as memorials of the great acts of his 
life and death ; but, besides these, there were another sort of 
festivals instituted by the Church in honour of the apostles 
and martyrs, by whose actions and sufferings Christianity was | 
chiefly propagated and maintained in the world. The first 
original of these festivals is not certainly known*, but learned 
men commonly earry it as high as the second century. And 
there is plain evidence for this: for they are not only frequently 
spoken of in Cyprian and Tertullian, but long before in the 
epistle of the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium, 
recorded by Eusebius”; where, speaking of the martyrdom of 


a Hospin. de Festis Christianor. c. iv. p. 14. (p. 22, Genev. 1674.) Memorize 
martyrum ex omnibus fere horum temporum auctoribus fit mentio, et circa 
annum Christi elxx. primum institutee videntur. Non tamen ab initio ferice seu 
festa, sed memorize tantum fuerint, in quibus passio et constantia martyrum 
preedicabatur, ut fideles, qui przesentes erant, ad similem virtutem incitarentur 5 
deinde ad suze quisque vocationis labores revertebatur. Cave’s Primitive 
Christianity, part i. ch. vii. (London, 1682. p. 198.) The first that I remember 
to have met with, is that of Polycarp (whose martyrdom is placed by Eusebius 
an. 168, under the third persecution), concerning whose death and sufferings 





the Church of Smyrna (of which he was bishop), giving an account to the 
Church of Philomelium, and especially of the place where they had honourably 
entombed his bones, they do profess that (so far the malice of their enemies 
would permit them, and they prayed God nothing might hinder it) they would 
assemble in that place, and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom with joy 
and gladness. 

Ὁ Euseb. lib. iv. c. xv. (Reading, 1720. p. 171, 18.) Ἔνθα ὡς δυνατὸν ἡμῖν 
συναγομένοις ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ, παρέξει ὁ κύριος ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν τοῦ 
μαρτυρίου αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον, εἴς τε τῶν προηθληκότων μνήμην, καὶ 
τῶν μελλόντων ἄσκησίν τε καὶ ἑτοιμασίαν. 


Cuar. VIL. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 133 


Polycarp, their bishop, who suffered about the year 168, they 
tell their brethren, that they intended by God’s permission to 
meet at his tomb, and celebrate his birthday [meaning the 
day of his martyrdom] with joy and gladness, as well for the 
memory of the sufferer, as for example to posterity. 


Secr. I].—Why called their Natalitia, or ‘ Birthday. 


Where we may observe their peculiar phrase in styling the 
day of his martyrdom his birthday, which was according to the 
usual style of the Church in this affair: for so Tertullian “ and 
others use the words ‘natalitia,’ and ‘ natales,’) meaning not 
‘their natural birth, but ‘ their nativity to a glorious crown in 
the kingdom of heaven.’ I have noted before, in speaking of 
the civil festivals‘, that the ‘natales,’ or ‘birthdays’ of the 
emperors, often signify not their natural, but political birth- 
day, or the day of their inauguration to the imperial crown. 
And so it was with the Church; whenever she spake of the 
nativities of her martyrs, she meant not the day of their natu- 
ral birth, but the day wherein, by suffering death, they were 
born again to a new life, and solemnly inaugurated to a celes- 
tial kingdom, and a crown of endless glory. To this purpose 
Peter Chrysologus bids his auditors, when they hear of the 
birthday of a saint, not to imagine that it means the day of 
his carnal birth on earth®, but the day on which he was borne 
from earth to heaven, from labour to rest, from torments to 
delight and pleasure. “In this sense,” Tertullian says ’, 
«δ, Paul was born again by a new nativity at Rome, because 
he suffered martyrdom there.” ‘‘ In like manner,” Prudentius 


¢ Tertul. de Coron. Milit. ¢. iii. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua 
die facimus. (p. 102, line 8.) ——Conf. Cone. Laodic. ¢. li. Ὅτι ob δεῖ ἐν τεσ- 
σαρακοστῇ μαρτύρων γενέθλιον ἐπιτελεῖν. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1505.) 
Hom. Ixx. Depositionis dies natalis dicitur, ete. 


Ambros. 





ad See book xx. ch. i. sect. iv. 

€ Chrysol. Serm. exxix. (Aug. Vind. 1758. p. 189.) Natalem sanctorum quum 
auditis, carissimi, nolite putare illum dici, quo nascuntur in terram de carne, 
sed de terra in ecelum, de labore ad requiem, de tentationibus ad quietem, de 
cruciatibus ad delicias, non fluxas, sed fortes, et stabiles, et aeternas, de mun- 
danis risibus ad coronam et gloriam. 

f Tertul. Scorpiac. cont. Gnosticos, ¢. xv. (p. 500, A 3.) Tune Paulus civitatis 
Romance consequitur nativitatem, quum illic martyrii renascitur generositate. 


134: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


says *, “a martyr’s birthday is the day of his passion.” And 
Chrysostom gives the reason of this", ‘‘ Because the death of 
a martyr is not properly a death, but an endless life: for the 
sake of which all things were to be endured, and death itself 
to be despised.” Upon this account the ancient author, under 
the name of Origen, says’, ““ When they celebrated the memo- 
rials of those holy men, they kept not their first nativity, as 
bemg the inlet to sorrow and temptation; but the day of 
their death, as the period of their miseries, and that which 
sets them beyond the reach of temptations. We celebrate 
the day of their death, because they die not even when they 
seem to die.” 


Secr. I1l.—These Festivals usually kept at the Graves of the 
Martyrs. 


Now these solemnities were usually celebrated at the graves 
or monuments of the martyrs, which, according to the custom 
of burying in those times, were commonly without the cities, 
in large ‘crypt,’ under ground; where, in times of persecu- 
tion, the Christians were often used to meet for safety, when 
they could not enjoy their churches. And, in after-ages, 
churches were built over these graves, which were therefore 
called martyria, areee, ccemeteria, mens, and memorize 
martyrum ; as I have shown at large in a former Booki. To 


8 Prudent. Hymn. xi. de Hippolyto, v. 196. (Galland. vol. viii. p. 465.) 
Natalemque diem passio festa refert. 

h Chrysostom. Hom. xliii. de Romano Martyre. (hom, xliv. p. 509, edit. 
Francof.+) Ὅτι μαρτύρων θάνατος οὐκ ἔστι θάνατος; ἀλλὰ ζωὴ πέρας οὐκ 
ἔχουσα, καὶ μάλιστά γε ὑπὲρ ταύτης πάντα ὑπομένειν χρὴ; καὶ Ore δεῖ 
καταφρονεῖν τελευτῆς. (See Bened. vol. ii. p. ὅ91, Ὁ 5.) 

1 Origen. in Job. lib. iii. (Bened. Paris. 1733. vol. ii. p. 901, F 10.) Nos non 
nativitatis diem celebramus quum sit dolorum atque tentationum introitus, sed 
mortis diem celebramus, utpote omnium dolorum depositionem atque omnium 
tentationum effugationem. Diem mortis celebramus, quia non moriuntur hi, 
qui mori videntur. Euseb. Emisen. Serm. de Natali 5. Genesii. (Max. Bibl. 
V. P. vol. vi. p. 670, C.) Beatorum martyrum passiones, natales voeamus dies, 
quando eos martyrii vita et gloriz fides dum ingerit morti, genuit eeternitati, et 
perpetua gaudia dolore parturiit. Merito plane dicendi natales dies, per quos 
illi, qui nati fuerant in hance fragilitatis humanze miseriam, subito renascuntur 





in gloriam, vitae perennis initium de mortis fine sumentes. 
J Book viii. ch. i. sect. ix. vol. ii. p. 356. 


παρ, VIL. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 135 


these places they resorted, whenever they celebrated the me- 
morial of any particular martyr: which is the reason why, in 
the ancient panegyrics of the fathers upon particular martyrs, 
we sometimes hear them speaking of leaving the city-churches 
upon the anniversaries of the martyrs, and going out into the 
country to the monuments or memorials of the martyrs, to 
hold assemblies there, where the martyrs lay buried. Thus 
Chrysostom, in one of his homilies upon the martyrs, says, as 
before, “As when the festival of the Maccabees was cele- 
brated, all the country came thronging into the city; so, now, 
when the feast of the martyrs, who lie buried in the country, 
is celebrated, it was fit the whole city should be transferred 
thither.” And, in another homily upon St. Drosis, he says’, 
“Though they had spiritual entertainment in the city, yet 
their going out to the saints afforded them both great profit 
and pleasure.” 


k Chrysostom. Hom. Ixv. de Martyribus. (Bened. 1718. p. 651, B 9.) Καθ- 
ἅπερ τῆς ἑορτῆς τῶν MakkaBaiwy ἐπιτελουμένης, πᾶσα ἡ χώρα εἰς τὴν 
πόλιν ἐξεχύθη: οὕτω τῆς ἑορτῆς τῶν ἐκεῖ μαρτύρων ἀγομένης; νῦν τὴν 
πόλιν ἅπασαν πρὸς ἐκείνους μεταστῆναι ἐχρῆν. 

1 Chrysostom. Hom. lxvii. in Drosid. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 688.) Οἱ φιλό- 
πονοι τῶν ποιμένων, ἐπειδὰν διὰ μακροῦ χειμῶνος ἴδωσι λαμπρὰν ἀκτῖνα, 
καὶ θερμοτέραν γενομένην ἡμέραν, τῆς μάνδρας ἐξαγαγόντες τὰ πρόβατα, 
πρὸς τὰς συνήθεις ἄγουσι νομάς" τούτους δὲ ὁ καλὸς ποιμὴν οὗτος μιμού- 
μενος, τὴν ἱερὰν ταύτην ἀγέλην, καὶ τὴν πνευματικὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποίμνην 
πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἁγίων νομὰς ἤγαγε ταύτας τὰς πνευματικάς" κορέννυνται 
μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς φάτνης ἑστῶτα τὰ πρόβατα: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὰν ἔξω γένηται τῶν 
σηκῶν, πλείονα ἀπὸ τῶν πεδίων καρποῦνται τὴν ὠφέλειαν, μετὰ πολλῆς 
τῆς τέρψεως κατακύπτοντα, καὶ τὴν πόαν διὰ τῶν ὀδόντων ἀποκείροντα; 
καθαρόν τε ἀέρα ἀναπνέοντα, καὶ πρὸς ἀκτῖνα βλέποντα διειδῆ καὶ φαιδρὰν, 
παρὰ λίμνας καὶ πηγὰς σκιρτῶντα καὶ ποταμούς" φέρει δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἡ γῆ 
τινα τέρψιν, τοῖς ἄνθεσι καλλωπιζομένη πάντοθεν" οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων δὲ μόνον, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦτο πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν ὠφέλειαν, πλήρης μὲν γὰρ ἡμῖν 
καὶ ἔνδον ἡ τράπεζα τῶν πνευματικῶν ἐδεσμάτων παρέκειτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ πρὸς 
τοὺς ἁγίους ἔξοδος τούτους ἔχει τινὰ καὶ ψυχαγωγίαν, καὶ κέρδος τῆς 
ψυχαγωγίας οὐκ ἔλαττον, οὐκ ἐπειδὴ καθαρὸν τὸν ἀέρα ἀναπνέομεν" ἀλλ᾽ 
ἐπειδὴ πρὸς τὰ τῶν γενναίων τούτων κατορθώματα βλέπομεν, οὐ παρὰ 
ποταμοὺς ὑδάτων, ἀλλὰ παρὰ ποταμοὺς χαρισμάτων σκιρτῶντες" οὐ κατα- 
κύπτοντες, καὶ πόαν κείροντες τοῖς ὀδοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ μαρτύρων ἀρετὰς ἀνα- 
λεγόμενοι" οὐχὶ γῆν ὁρῶντες καλλωπιζομένην ἄνθεσιν, ἀλλὰ σώματα βλέπον- 
τες χαρίσμασι βρύοντα πνευματικοῖς. 


136 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Sect. [V.—And mostly confined to those particular Churches 
where the Martyrs suffered and lay buried. 


Whence we may observe, that those festivals, at first, were 
not general festivals, like those of our Lord, observed over 
the whole Church, but chiefly celebrated in those particular 
churches where the martyrs suffered, and lay buried; as the 
festival of Polycarp was chiefly celebrated at Smyrna, and that 
of Cyprian at Carthage, at the places where they were bishops, 
and suffered martyrdom: this being most for the edification of 
the people, to have the examples of their own martyrs, who 
lived and died among them, proposed to their imitation. And 
this is confirmed by a peculiar remark made by Sozomen upon 
the two Churches of Gaza and Constantia, in Palestine ™, 
‘That though they were not above twenty furlongs distant 
from one another, yet they had each of them their own bishop 
and clergy, and distinct festivals of their own particular mar- 
tyrs:” To this purpose it was customary for every Church to 
have her own ‘fasti,’ or ‘kalendar of martyrs τ᾿ and public 
notaries to take the account of what was said and done to or 
by the martyrs at their passions: out of which, general mar- 
tyrologies were made by men in after-ages, collecting all these 
particular accounts into one body, which Valesius™ and Pagi® 
own to be the first original of the Roman and all other martyr- 
ologies, which are not so ancient as the kalendars. For such 
kalendars and public acts were originally kept in every Chureh 
to preserve the memorial of their martyrs: as is evident from 
Tertullian’, who speaks of the Church having her ‘ census’ 
and ‘fasti;’ that is, as Rigaltius and others well explain it, 
her ‘rolls, or ‘accounts,’ both of her expenses on the poor, 
and the Acts or Passions of her martyrs. ‘To which Cyprian 


m Sozom. lib. y. 6. iii, (Reading, 1720. p. 184, 1.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. 
p. 486, B 5.) “Exaripa ἰδίᾳ ἐπίσκοπον καὶ κλῆρον ἔχει, Kal πανηγύρεις pap- 
τύρων, καὶ μνείας τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς γενομένων ἱερέων. 

n Vales. de Martyrologio Romano,ad caleem Eusebii, p. 25. Nobiliores eccle- 
size suos semper fastos habuerunt, in quibus et episcoporum nomina et martyrum, 
qui apud ipsos passi fuerant, natale dies perscripti habebantur, ete. 

© Pagi Critic. in Baron. an. 64. n. vi. tot. (Lucze, vol. i. p. 607.) Kalendaria 
Martyrologiis vetustiora sunt. 

Ρ Tertul. de Coron. Milit. ¢. xiii. Habes tuos census, tuos fastos. 


Cuar. VII. § 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 137 


also plainly refers“, when, being in exile, he sent to his clergy 
to be careful in setting down the days on which the martyrs 
suffered, that there might be an anniversary commemoration 
made of them. 


Secr. V.—Usual to read the Acts or Passions of the 
Martyrs on their proper Festivals. 

These Acts or Passions of the martyrs, when they were 
carefully taken, and preserved genuine without corruption, 
were commonly read in the church upon the anniversary 
commemoration and proper festival of the martyr. The third 
Council of Carthage, which forbids all other books to be read 
in the church besides the Canonical Scripture, excepts the 
Passions of the Martyrs*, as books that might be read on their 
anniversary days of commemoration. St. Austin, and Pope 
Leo, and Gelasius, often mention the reading of such histories 
in the African and Roman Churches. Czesarius Arelatensis, 
and Alcimus Avitus, and Ferreolus, speak of the same in the 
French Churches. And some think, not improbably, that such 
sort of histories and Passions of the martyrs, had particularly 
the name of ‘ Legenda,’ ‘ legends,’ upon this account, because 
they were used to be read in the church on the festivals of 
martyrs: but the fabulous writers of lives, such as the author 
of the Golden Legend, and other monkish impostors, have 
since written the lives of saints and martyrs in such a scanda- 
lous manner, as to alter the signification of the good old word, 
and make a legend pass for a romantic fiction and mere impos- 
ture. Of which learned men, even in the Romish Church, 
such as Ludovicus Vives, and Melchior Canus, and Papebroch’, 
and Pagi', have made frequent and just complaints: confessing, 
that even their breviaries and passionals are often filled with 
such monstrous fables, as would make a wise man blush to 


4 Cyprian. Epist. xxxvii. al. xii. ad Cler. (Oxon. 1682. p. 27.) (p. 288, 
Amstelod. 1700.) Dies eorum, quibus excedunt, adnotate, ut commemorationes 
eorum inter memorias martyrum celebrare possimus. 

r Cone. Carth, III. ¢. xlvii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1177.) Liceat legi passiones 
martyrum, quum anniversarii eorum dies celebrantur. 

5. Papebroc. Conat. Hist. Chronol. p. 43. 

t Pagi Critic. in Baron. an. 302. sect. xviii. xix. (Lucie, vol. iii. p. 324.) 


138 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


hear or read them in the public offices of the Church; and 
which they desire heartily to see perfectly reformed. Parti- 
cularly Pagi exposes the fiction of Ursula", and her eleven 
thousand companions, all virgins, said to be martyred at 
Cologne, at one time, under Cyricius, a pope that never was in 
being; and he tells us the Roman Martyrology and Breviary 
have dropped the number as an incredible fiction; as also did 
the Cologne editors, and the school of the Sorbonne, retaining 
the name of Ursula, but being ashamed of her eleven thousand 
companions, notwithstanding that Hermannus Crombak wrote 
a large volume, called ‘Ursula Vindicata,’ to defend this 
monstrous fable. It were easy to give many other such 
instances, but this one is sufficient to show the difference 
between the modern passionals, and the simplicity of those of 
the ancient Church, the reading of which was one part of their 
solemn exercise upon these festivals. 


Sect. VI.—And to make Panegyrical Orations upon them. 


To these they commonly added a panegyrical oration or 
sermon of their own composing, in commendation of the 
virtues of the martyr, to excite their audience, which was 
usually very great upon such occasions, to the imitation of 
them. We have a great many instances of such orations in 
Chrysostom, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Austin, Ambrose, Leo, 
Chrysologus, and others. Where the whole design of the 
orator is so to extol the excellencies of the saint, as to inflame 
his auditory with the love of his admirable virtues. This was 
the great end and design of keeping these festivals, and of 
their meeting together upon such occasions, partly to pay a 
due respect and honour to the memory of the dead, and partly 
to engage themselves to imitate such great and brave examples. 
It is thus the Church of Smyrna, in their epistle to the Church 
of Philomelium, tell their brethren’, “ They intended annually 


u Tbid. an. 383. sect. iii, (Lucee, vol. iv. p. 551.) Ursule historia multa 
fabulosa continet. 

v Euseb. lib. iv. 6. xv. (Vales. p. 109, B 8.) (Reading, 1720. p. 171..5} 
Τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ Υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ Θεοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν" τοὺς δὲ μάρτυρας ὡς 
μαθητὰς τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ μιμητὰς ἀγαπῶμεν ἀξίως, ἕνεκεν εὐνοίας ἀνυπερ- 
βλήτου, τῆς εἰς τὸν ἴδιον βασιλέα καὶ διδάσκαλον: ὧν γένοιτο καὶ ἡμᾶς 
συγκοινωνούς τε καὶ συμμαθητὰς γενέσθαι.-- 866 note (b), p. 132. 

4“ 
δ) 


Cuar. VII. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 139 


to meet at Polycarp’s tomb, and celebrate his birthday with 
joy and gladness, as well for the memory of the sufferer, as for 
example to posterity :” but as for any other honour of religious 
worship (which their enemies the Jews suggested they would 
be inclined to give him), they declared they had no such 
intention: for they could never be induced either to forsake 
Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world, or to 
worship any other. “Him, as being the Son of God, we worship 
and adore: but the martyrs, as the disciples and followers of the 
Lord, we love with a deserved affection, for their exceeding great 
love toward their own king and master; desiring to be made 
partners and fellow-disciples with them.” In like manner, 
St. Austin says”, ‘‘ Our religion consists not in the worship of 
dead men: because if they lived piously, they are not esteemed 
such as would desire that kind of honour; but would have Him 
to be worshipped by us, through whose illumination they re- 
joice to have us partners with them in their merit. They are 
therefore to be honoured for their imitable and worthy exam- 
ples, not to be worshipped for religion.” So again, in answer 
to the calumny of the Manichees, who made no conscience of 
falsely accusing the Catholics of giving them Divine honour 
and adoration, he says*, ‘“‘ We celebrate the memories of the 
martyrs with religious solemnity, to excite ourselves to their 
imitation, and to become partners in their merits, and to have 
the benefit of their prayers: yet so as that we never offer any 
sacrifice to a martyr, but only to the God of the martyrs. 


w Aug. de Vera Relig. c. lv. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 587, C 9.) Non sit nobis 
religio cultus hominum mortuorum: quia si pie vixerunt, non sic habentur, ut 
tales queerant honores: sed illum a nobis coli volunt, quo Uluminante letantur, 
meriti sui nos esse consortes. Honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem, non 
adorandi propter religionem. 

x Aug. cont. Faust, lib. xx. ¢. xxi. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 246, F.) Chris- 
tianus populus memorias martyrum religiosa sollemnitate concelebrat, et ad 
excitandam imitationem, et ut meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus 
adjuvetur: ita tamen, ut nulli martyrum, sed ipsi Deo martyrum, quamvis in 
memoriis martyrum, constituamus altaria. Quis enim antistitum in locis sanc- 
torum corporum adsistens altari, aliquando dixit, ‘Offerimus tibi, Petre, aut 
Paule, aut Cypriane ? sed quod offertur, offertur Deo, qui martyres coronavit 
apud memorias eorum quos coronavit: ut ex ipsorum locorum admonitione 
major adfectus exsurgat ad acuendam caritatem et in illos quos imitari possu- 
mus, et in illum quo adjuvante possumus. 


140 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


For what priest, standing at the altar in the places where the 
holy bodies lie, ever said, ‘ We offer unto thee Peter, or Paul, 
or Cyprian?’ But whatever is offered, is offered unto God 
that crowned the martyrs, at the memorials or graves of those 
whom he crowned, that the very places may admonish us of 
our duty, and raise our affection, and quicken our love both 
toward them whom we may imitate, and toward Him who 
enables us to imitate them.” Imitation, we see, was the great 
thing designed by these festivals, and all the eloquent dis- 
courses that were made upon the martyrs: they were not so 
much intended to be panegyrics and praises of the martyrs, 
who were above them, and needed them not, as to be flaming 
and warm engagements upon the audience, to induce them to 
imitate the glorious actions and virtues of the martyrs. Thus 
Chrysostom expressly tells his auditory, beginning one of these 
panegyrics with these words ¥: “ Blessed Barlaam hath called 
us together to this holy festival with great solemnity; not to 
praise him, but to imitate him; not to be hearers of his enco- 
mium, but to be followers of his worthy actions. For then 
the martyrs are chiefly sensible of honour done to themselves, 
when they see their fellow-servants made partakers of their 
own goodness. Therefore if any one would praise the martyrs, 
let him imitate the martyrs: if any one would give the cham- 
pions of religion their just encomium, let him emulate their 
labours. This will bring no less pleasure to the martyrs than 
their own virtues.” And he closes the same discourse with 
this exhortation: “ Thou art a soldier of Christ, beloved, put 


y Chrysostom. Hom. Ixxiii. de Barlaam Martyr. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. 
681 > aN « ~ > 4 «ε ‘ ε A 4 , c 
Ρ. 681.) Συνεκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν ταύτην ἑορτὴν Kai πανήγυριν ὁ 
Μακάριος Βαρλαάμ᾽ οὐχ ἵνα αὐτὸν ἐπαινέσωμεν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα αὐτὸν ζηλώσω- 
ριος θ xX ᾽ ἢ 
μεν" οὐχ ἵνα ἀκροαταὶ γενώμεθα τῶν ἐγκωμίων, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μιμηταὶ γενώμεθα 
τῶν αὐτοῦ κατορθωμάτων.... Τότε γὰρ μάλιστα τῆς οἰκείας τιμῆς αἴσθησιν 
λαμβάνουσιν οἱ μάρτυρες, ὅταν τοὺς συνδούλους τοὺς ἑαυτῶν πρὸς τὴν τῶν 
μ μάρτυρες, ρὸς τὴ 
2 , 2 ~ , , » oe » , 
ἰδίων ἀγαθῶν κοινωνίαν φθάσαντας ἴδωσιν: ὥστε εἴ τις βούλεται... 
ἐγκωμιάζειν τοὺς ἀθλητὰς τῆς εὐσεβείας, ζηλούτω τὸν ἐκείνων πόνον" τοῦτο 
τοῖς μάρτυσιν οὐκ ἐλάττω τῶν οἰκείων κατορθωμάτων οἴσει τὴν ἡδονήν. 





Id. p. 607, D 7. Στρατιώτης εἶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀγαπητὲ, ὁπλίζου, μὴ 
καλλωπίζου ἀθλητὴς εἶ γενναῖος, ἀνδρίζου, μὴ ὡραΐζου: οὕτω μιμησώμεθα 
τοὺς ἁγίους τούτους" οὕτω τιμήσωμεν τοὺς ἀριστέας, τοὺς στεφανίτας, τοὺς 
Θεοῦ φίλους, καὶ βαδίσαντες τὴν αὐτὴν αὐτοῖς ὁδὸν τῶν αὐτῶν αὐτοῖς 
στεφάνων ἐπιτευξόμεθα. 


Cuap. VII. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 141 


on thy armour, and mind not thy dress: thou art a generous 
combatant, quit thyself like a man, and regard not external 
comeliness. So shall we imitate these holy men: so shall we 
honour these valiant warriors, these crowned champions, these 
friends of God.” It were easy to cite hundreds of passages 
out of Chrysostom and other ancient writers, to the same 
purpose. For this was the great drift of all their panegyrics 
and discourses upon these festivals, to assure men, that to copy 
after the example of the martyrs was the greatest honour they 
could show to these renowned champions of the Christian faith. 
And it always had its proper effects upon men’s minds. For 
as in times of persecution, Tertullian told the heathen’, “ That 
the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church; and the 
more they were cut down, the more they grew; the more 
exquisite cruelty that was used to destroy them, did only allure 
greater numbers to come over to their party*;” so Chrysostom 
afterwards assures us”, “‘ That the very memory of the martyrs 
wrought wonderful effects upon the minds of men: it confirmed 
them against the assaults of wicked spirits; it delivered them 
from impure and absurd thoughts; and set their minds in 
great tranquillity. The death of the martyrs was still an 
exhortation to Christians*; the support of the Church; the 
confirmation of Christianity; the destruction of death; the 


z Tertul. Apol. ο. 1. (Paris. 1664. p. 40, B 5.) Nee quicquam proficit exqui- 
sitior queeque crudelitas vestra, illecebra est magis secte. Plures efficimur, 
quoties metimur a vobis. Semen est sanguis Christianorum. 

a Tertul. ad Scapul. ὁ. v. (Paris. 1664. p. 72.) Hane sectam tune magis 
eedificari scias, quum ceedi videtur. 

b Chrysostom. Hom. xx. (Paris. 1616. tom. v. p. 290, C 2.) Οὐ γὰρ οὕτως 
οἱ λιμένες πλωτῆρας, ὡς αἱ τῶν ἁγίων τούτων ἑορταὶ τοὺς πιστοὺς ἀνα- 
κτᾶσθαι πεφύκασιν. ἐκείνους μὲν γὰρ θαλαττίων κυμάτων ἐμβολῆς, καὶ 
ἐρεσίας μακρᾶς ἀπαλλάττουσι λιμένες. τοὺς δὲ εἰς πανήγυριν μαρτύρων 
ἀπαντῶντας, πνευμάτων πονηρῶν καὶ ἀκαθάρτων, λογισμῶν ἀτόπων, 
πολλῆς τῆς ἐν ψυχῇ γινομένης ζάλης, ἡ τῶν ἁγίων μνήμη τούτων 
ἐξαρπάζειν εἴωθε. 

¢ [bid. Hom. de 5. Droside. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 690, B 12.) Μαρτύρων θάνα- 
roc πιστῶν ἐστι παράκλησις, ἐκκλησιῶν παῤῥησία, Χριστιανισμοῦ σύστασις, 
θανάτου κατάλυσις, ἀναστάσεως ἀπόδειξις, δαιμόνων γέλως, διαβόλου κατη- 
γορία, φιλοσοφίας διδασκαλία, παραίνεσις τῆς ὑπεροψίας τῶν παρόντων 
πραγμάτων, καὶ τῆς τῶν μελλόντων ἐπιθυμίας ὁδὸς, παραμυθία τῶν κατ- 
ἐχόντων ἡμᾶς δεινῶν, καὶ ὑπομονῆς πρόφασις, καρτερίας ἀφορμὴ, καὶ πάντων 
τῶν ἀγαθῶν ῥίζα, καὶ πηγὴ καὶ μήτηρ. 


142 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


demonstration of the resurrection; the reproach of devils; the 
condemnation of Satan; the doctrine of philosophy; an exhor- 
tation to despise the things of this world; and the way to lead 
men to the desire of a better; a comfort to men in affliction; 
a motive to patience; an engagement to fortitude; and, ina 
word, the root, and fountain, and mother, of all that is good. 
When you see the martyrs despise life’, though you be the 
most stupid and negligent of all creatures, you cannot but 
entertain sublime and exalted thoughts, contemning pleasures, 
despising riches, and desiring to have your conversation in 
heaven. If you languish under a disease, the Passions of the 
martyrs will afford you one of the strongest arguments to 
engage you to patience. If you are oppressed with poverty, or 
any other evils, cast but your eye to the bitterness of the 
torments which they endured; and you have a present consola- 
tion and remedy for all the troubles that can befall you. For 
this reason I love, above all things, the commemorations 
of the martyrs; I love and embrace them all, but especially 
those wherein we commemorate the martyrdom of women” 
(such as Drosis, about whom he was now speaking): ‘because 
by how much they are the weaker vessel, by so much greater 
is their grace, their trophy more illustrious, their victory more 
glorious, not only for the weakness of their sex, but because 
the enemy of human nature is overcome by that by which it 
was first vanquished. For by a virgin the devil first slew 


ἃ Ibid. (Bened. 1718. p. 692, C.) Ὅταν γὰρ ἴδῃς τούτους ἁπάσης κατα- 
φρονοῦντας τῆς ζωῆς, κἂν ἁπάντων ἀναισθητότερος ἧς καὶ νωθρότατος, 
ὑψηλότατον δέξῃ φρόνημα, καὶ καταγελάσῃ τρυφῆς, ὑπερόψει χρημάτων, καὶ 
ἐπιθυμήσεις τῆς ἐκεῖ διατριβῆς" κἂν ἐν ἀῤῥωστίαις ἧς, εἰς ὑπομονὴν ἀφορ- 
μὴν λήψῃ μεγίστην, τὰ τῶν μαρτύρων παθήματα: κἂν πενίᾳ πιέζῃ, κἂν 
ὁτιοῦν ἕτερον τῶν χαλεπωτάτων, πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἐκείνοις ἐπαχθεισῶν 
βασάνων βλέπων ἀρκοῦσαν ἕξεις παραμυθίαν τῶν κατειληφότων ἁπάντων 
δεινῶν. Διὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα φιλῶ τῶν μαρτύρων τὰς μνήμας, καὶ φιλῶ καὶ 
ἀσπάζομαι πάσας μὲν, μάλιστα δὲ ὕταν γυναῖκες ἀγωνιζόμεναι τύχωσιν" 
ὅσῳ γὰρ τὸ σκεῦος ἀσθενέστερον, τοσούτῳ μείζων ἡ χάρις, τοσούτῳ ap- 
πρότερον τὸ τρόπαιον, τοσούτῳ περιφανεστέρα ἡ νίκη, οὐ διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν 
τῆς φύσεως τῶν ἀθλητῶν, ἀλλ᾽ bre καὶ οἷς ἐκράτησεν ὁ ἐχθρὸς, τούτοις 
ἑάλω νῦν. Διὰ παρθένου γοῦν ἀπέκτεινε πρώην τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ ὁ διάβολος: διὰ 
παρθένου μετὰ ταῦτα κατηγωνίσατο τὸν διάβολον ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ τὸ ξίφος, 
ὅπερ ἦν ἠκονημένον αὐτῷ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, τοῦτο τὴν τοῦ δράκοντος ἀπέτεμε 
κεφαλήν. 


Cuap. VII. ὃ 7. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 143 


Adam; and by a virgin, afterwards, Christ overcame the 
devil; and that very sword, which was sharpened against us, 
eut off the head of the dragon.” He often repeats this famed 
aphorism’, “ That the honour of the martyrs is to imitate their 
fortitude and virtue;” and as frequently inculcates 'Tertullian’s 
observation’, “That the blood of the martyrs waters the 
beautiful plants of the Church. For as plants grow the more 
for being watered, so the faith flourishes the more for being 
opposed’; and the more it is persecuted, the more it grows: 
nor does water make a garden more fertile, than the blood of 
the martyrs does the Church.” For this reason, the ancients 
strained all their eloquence to set off the constancy and gal- 
lantry of the martyrs on their proper festivals, that hereby they 
might induce their hearers to copy after such great and brave 


examples. 


Sect. VIL—The Communion always administered upon these 
Days. 


“And because,” as Chrysostom observes", “the blood of 
Christ, which he first shed for the martyrs themselves, was 
the great thing that animated so many thousands to lay down 
their lives with joy and alacrity for his sake, that they might 
communicate in his sufferings, and be made conformable to his 
death ;” therefore these festivals of the martyrs never passed 
without a general communion of the whole Church partaking 


e Chrysostom. Hom. in Julian. Martyr. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 677, C2.) Teun 
μαρτύρων ob τὸ παραγενέσθαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τούτου 
ζηλῶσαι τὴν ἀνδρείαν αὐτῶν. Id. Hom. de Martyr. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 667.) 
Τιμὴ μάρτυρος, μίμησις μάρτυρος. 

f Ibid. Hom. Ixxiv. de Martyr. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 714, A 6.) Αἷμα διηνεκῶς 
τὰ καλὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἄρδον φυτά. 

g Ibid. Hom. xl. in Juventin. et Maxim. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 575, D 6.) Καθ- 
ἅπερ τὰ φυτὰ ἀρδευόμενα αὔξεσθαι πέφυκεν" οὕτω Kai ἡ πίστις ἡ ἡμετέρα 
πολεμουμένη μᾶλλον ἀνθεῖ, καὶ ἐνοχλουμένη πλεονάζει, καὶ οὐχ οὕτω τοὺς 
κήπους εὐθαλεῖς ἡ τῶν ὑδάτων ἀρδεία ποιεῖν εἴωθεν, ὡς τὰς ἐκκλησίας τῶν 





μαρτύρων τὸ αἷμα ποτίζειν πέφυκε. 

h Chrysostom. Hom. Ixxiv. de Martyr. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 714, A 9.) 
Al ἐκεῖνο τὸ αἷμα τοῦτο ἔῤῥευσεν" ἐξ οὗ γὰρ ἐνύγη ἡ πλευρὰ τοῦ Δεσ- 
πότου, μυρίας ὁρᾷς λοιπὸν πλευρὰς νυττομένας᾽ τίς γὰρ οὐ μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς 
ἀποδύσαιτο πολλῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας τούτους, μέλλων κοινωνεῖν δεσποτι- 
κῶν παθημάτων, καὶ συμμορφοῦσθαι τῷ θανάτῳ Χριστοῦ : 


144 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


of the blessed symbols of Christ’s body and blood, the oblation 
of which was always celebrated upon these occasions. This 
we learn from the same St. Chrysostom', who dissuading his 
people from intemperance upon one of these solemnities, bids 
them consider “how absurd it was, after such a meeting, after 
a whole night’s vigil, after hearing the Holy Scriptures, after 
participating of the Divine mysteries, after such a spiritual 
repast, for a man or woman to be found spending whole days 
in a tavern.” The foundation of his argument is laid upon 
this supposition, that they had received the eucharist in the 
Church before, in celebrating the memorial of the martyrs. 
And so Sidonius Apollinaris represents the matter, when 
speaking of the festival of St. Justus, one of their proper 
martyrs at Lyons, he says*, “‘That after they had kept his 
vigil the night preceding, they assembled again by day at nine 
in the morning, when the priests did ‘rem Divinam facere,’ 
‘offer the oblation : 7 or ‘consecrate the eucharist,’ as Savaro 
rightly expounds it. 


Secr. VIII.—And herein a particular Commemoration of the 
Martyrs was made, called ‘the Oblation, or Sacrifice of 
Praise and Thanksgiving to God for them, and Prayer for a 
general Consummation and happy Resurrection. 


And, at this time particularly, they made a more solemn 
commemoration of the martyrs in the oblation of the eucha- 
rist; which being a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to 
God, for the example of their noble courage and sufferings on 
the behalf of religion, it was therefore commonly styled ‘the 
oblation, or sacrifice, made for the nativities of the martyrs.’ 
Thus we find it in Tertullian': ‘“ We make oblations for the 
dead, for their birthdays, or new birth unto heaven and happi- 
ness, on their anniversary commemorations.” In like manner, 


i Ibid. Hom. lix. de Martyr. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 669, A 8.) ᾿Εννόησον ἡλίκος 
γέλως, μετὰ τοιαύτην σύνοδον, μετὰ παννυχίδας, μετὰ γραφῶν ἁγίων 
ἀκρόασιν, μετὰ μυστηρίων θείων κοινωνίαν, καὶ μετὰ πνευματικὴν χορηγίαν, 
ἄνδρα ἢ γυναῖκα ἐν καπηλείῳ φαίνεσθαι διημερεύοντας. 

k Sidon. lib. v. ep. xvii. See forward, sect. ix. note (1). 

Tertul. de Coron. Milit. 6. iii. (Paris. 1664. p. 102.) Oblationes pro de- 
functis, pro natalitiis, annua die facimus. 


Char. VI. 8 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 145 


Cyprian bids his clergy register the days on which any of the 
confessors suffered death, that commemoration might be made 
of them among the memorials of the martyrs™; and that 
oblations and sacrifices might be made for them on the solemn 
days of their commemoration. So again, in another epistle™ ; 
‘* Ye remember how we are used to offer sacrifices for them, 
as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the martyrs 
by an anniversary commemoration.” There is some little 
dispute, indeed, among some of the ancients, what was to be 
understood by these sacrifices or oblations for the martyrs. 
St. Austin was of opinion, “That they could only mean the 
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God for their glorious 
deaths and brave examples.” And this, no doubt, was one 
part of the sacrifice they speak of : but when he says°, ‘“‘ That, 
he who prays for a martyr, does an injury to the martyr, 
because martyrs have attained to a sort of perfection in this 
life, and have no need of the prayers of the Church ;” this is 
not so consistent with the general practice of the Church, 
which was used to pray for patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and 
martyrs, as considering them in a state of imperfection still, 
so long as their bodies continued in the grave: which the 
apostle himself allows, when he says, ‘‘ God having provided 
some better thing for us, that they without us should not be 
made perfect :” therefore the Church may be supposed, by her 
sacrifices and oblations for martyrs, to understand prayers, as 


m Cyprian, Ep. xxxvii. al. xii. (Paris. 1609. p. 27.) (p. 188, edit. Amsterd. 
1700.) Dies eorum, quibus excedunt, adnotate, ut commemorationes eorum inter 
memorias martyrum celebrare possimus. . . . Celebrentur heic a nobis oblationes 
et sacrificia ob commemorationes eorum, ete. 

n Jbid. Ep. xxxiv. al. xxxix. (ibid. p. 77.) (p. 224, edit. cit.) Sacrificia pro 
eis semper, ut meministis, offerimus, quoties martyrum passiones et dies anni- 
versaria commemoratione celebramus. 

© Aug. Serm. xvii. de Verbis Apostol. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. p. 533, B 8.) In 
patria nullus orandi locus erit, sed tantum laudandi. Quare orandi nullus locus 
erit? Quia nihil deest. Quod ποῖος ereditur, ibi videtur: quod heie speratur, 
ibi tenetur ; quod heic petitur, ibi accipitur. Perfectio tamen in hac vita non- 
nulla est, ad quam sancti martyres pervenerunt. Ideoque habet ecclesiastica 
disciplina, quod fideles noverunt, quum martyres eo loco recitantur ad altare 
Dei, ubi non pro ipsis oretur ; pro ceteris autem commemoratis defunctis oratur. 
Injuria est enim, pro martyre orare, cujus nos debemus orationibus commendari. 
Certavit enim contra peccatum usque ad sanguinem. 


VOL. VII. L 


146 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


well as praises and thanksgivings, that they and all the faithful 
might obtain a perfect consummation in bliss, by the means of 
a happy resurrection. And that the Church did sometimes 
thus offer the sacrifice of prayer even for martyrs themselves, 
I have fully evinced in a former Book?; and therefore need 
say no more of it in this place. 


Sect. IX.—The Night preceding any of these Festivals com- 
monly observed as a Vigil, with Psalmody and Prayers. 


But we must observe, that for the solemnizing of these 
festivals of the martyrs, they commonly kept a vigil the night 
preceding, which they spent as they did those before the 
Lord’s-day and other great festivals, in psalmody, hymns, and 
prayers, till the morning-light. This is plain from Chry- 
sostom’s exhortation to the people upon one of these festivals®: 
‘“Ye have turned the night into day, by keeping your holy 
stations all the night: do not now turn the day into night 
again, by drunkenness and intemperance, and wanton and 
lascivious songs.” In like manner, Sidonius Apollinaris, 
describing the manner of their solemnizing the festival of 
St. Justus, bishop of Lyons, takes notice, not only of the 
observation of the day, but of the preceding vigil: “ We 
met,” says he, “at the grave of St. Justus ; it was a morning- 
procession before day; it was an anniversary solemnity; the 
confluence of people of both sexes was so great, that the 
church, though very capacious, and surrounded with cloisters, 
could not contain them. When the service of the vigil was 
ended, which the monks and clerical singers performed with 


P Book xv. ch. ili. sect. xvi. vol. v. p. 109. 

4 Chrysostom. Hom. lix. de Martyr. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 668, D 7.) 
Ἐποιήσατε τὴν νύκτα ἡμέραν διὰ τῶν παννυχίδων τῶν ἱερῶν" μὴ ποιήσατε 
πάλιν τὴν ἡμέραν νύκτα διὰ τῆς μέθης, καὶ τῆς κραιπάλης, καὶ τῶν ἀσμά- 
των τῶν πορνικῶν. 

r Sidon. lib. v. ep. xvii. (Paris. 1614. p. 142.) Conveneramus ad Sancti Justi 
sepulchrum : processio fuerat antelucana, solemnitas anniversaria, populus ingens 
sexu ex utroque, quem capacissima basilica non caperet, et quamlibet cincta 
diffusis eryptoporticibus. Cultu peracto vigiliarum, quas alternante mulcedine 
monachi clericique psalmicines concelebraverant, quisque in diversa secessimus, 
non procul tamen, utpote ad tertiam preesto futuri, quum sacerdotibus res 
Divina facienda. 


Cuap. VII. § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 14.7 


alternate melody, we separated for some time: but went not 
far away, as being to meet again at three o’clock [that is, nine 
in the morning], when the priests were to perform Divine 
service,” that is, the service of the communion, as on a 
festival. Thus the festivals of the martyrs were always 
introduced with a vigil, according to the manner of the 
Lord’s-day. 


Sect. X.—Common Entertainments made by the Rich for the 
Use of the Poor, upon these Festivals at the Graves of the 
Martyrs, till Abuses caused them to be laid aside. 


It was usual also upon these days for the rich to make 
feasts of charity, or common entertainments for the use of the 
poor at the graves of the martyrs. Some learned men‘ think 
this may be one meaning of those sacrifices and oblations, 
which are said to be made at the monuments of the martyrs ; 
and others there are‘, who think this was the only meaning of 
them ; because the word ‘ natalitia,’ in propriety, signifies ‘ the 
donations,’ or ‘largesses,’ which men were used to make upon 


5. Cave’s Primitive Christianity, part i. ch. vii. (London, 1682. p. 203.) They 
heard sermons and orations, joined in public prayers and praises, received the 
holy sacrament, offered gifts and charities for the poor, recited the names of 
the martyrs, then commemorated with their due elogies and commendations, 
and their virtues propounded to the imitation of the hearers. For which pur- 
pose, they had their set notaries, who took the acts, sayings, and sufferings of 
martyrs, which were after compiled into particular treatises, and were recited 
in these annual meetings; and this was the first original of martyrologies in the 
Christian Church... . Tertullian often: ‘Upen an anniversary-day (says he) 
we make oblations for them that are departed, in memory of their natalitia, or 
‘birthdays,’’ and to the same purpose elsewhere. ‘ As oft (says Cyprian) as by 
an anniversary commemoration we celebrate the passion-days of the martyrs, 
we always offer sacrifices for them ;’ and the same phrases oft occur in many 
others of the Fathers. By which it is evident they meant no more than their 
public prayers, and offering up praises to God for the piety, and constancy, and 
the excellent examples of their martyrs, their celebrating the eucharist at these 
times, as the commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice, their oblation of alms and 
charity for the poor, every one of which truly may, and often is, styled a sacri- 
fice or oblation ; and are so understood by some of the more moderate even of 
the Romish Church. Hospinian, De orig. Fest. Christ. (Genev. 1674. vol. ii. 
p- 18.) Quzeritur hoe loco quid sibi velint phrases et locutiones illee, ¢ offerre pro 
defunctis,’ et ‘sacrificium pro dormitione eorum celebrare,’ ete. 

© Junius, Not. in Tertul. de Coron. Milit. ο. iii. 

2 


1h Ζι 


148 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


their birthdays, rather than the birthdays themselves. But 
not to dispute this matter by way of criticism, with any, it is 
certain they had their συμπόσια, or ‘feasts of charity,’ and 
common banquets, on these days, at the graves of the martyrs. 
The ancient writer under the name of Origen says", “On 
these solemnities, they met together, both clergy and people, 
inviting the poor and needy, and refreshing the widows and 
the orphans; that so their festival might not only be a memo- 
rial of the happy state of the deceased; but, in respect of 
themselves also, an odour of a sweet smell in the sight of 
God.” In lke manner, Constantine says”, “‘ Sober feasts 
were made by many for the relief of the poor, and such as 
stood in need of their assistance.” So Chrysostom, dissuading 
his people from running to the diabolical entertainments that 
were used to be made at Daphne, one of the suburbs of 
Antioch, tells them*, “If they desired a corporeal, as well as 
a spiritual table, upon any of these festivals, they might, as 
soon as the assembly was done, recreate and feast their bodies 


u Origen. in Job. (Paris. 1733. vol. ii. p. 902, line 7.) Celebramus religiosos 
cum sacerdotibus convocantes, fideles una cum clero, invitantes adhue egenos et 
pauperes, pupillos et viduas saturantes, ut fiat festivitas nostra in memoriam 
requiei defunctis animabus, quarum memoriam celebramus, nobis autem efficia- 
tur in odorem suavitatis in conspectu eeterni Dei. 

W Constantin. Orat. ad Sanct. ο. xii. (Reading, 1720. p. 692, 23.) Σωφρονέσ- 
tara δὲ πολλῶν καὶ τὰ συμπόσια, πρὸς ἔλεον Kai ἀνάκτησιν τῶν δεομένων 
ποιούμενα, καὶ πρὸς βοήθειαν τῶν ἐκπεσόντων. 

x Chrysostom. Hom. xlvii. in Sanct. Jul. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 678, C 10.) 
Εἰ δὲ βούλει καὶ viv τέρψεως ἀπολαῦσαι, τί τερπνότερον τοῦ συλλόγου 
τούτου ; τί χαριέστερον τοῦ θεάτρου τοῦ πνευματικοῦ ; τῶν μελῶν τῶν σῶν; 
τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν συνουσίας ; ἀλλὰ καὶ σωματικῆς θέλεις τραπέζης μετα- 
σχεῖν ; ἐνταῦθα ἔξεστι μετὰ τὸ λυθῆναι τὸν σύλλογον, τοῦ μαρτυρίου πλησίον 
ὑπὸ συκῆν ἢ ἄμπελον καταλύσαντι, καὶ τῷ σώματι χαρίσασθαι τὴν ἄνεσιν, 
καὶ τὸ συνειδὸς ἀπαλλάξαι καταγνώσεως" ὁ γὰρ μάρτυς ἐγγύθεν ὁρώμενος 
καὶ πλησίον ὧν καὶ παρεστηκὼς αὐτῇ τῇ τραπέζῃ, οὐκ ἀφίησι τὴν ἡδονὴν 
εἰς ἁμαρτίαν ἐκχυθῆναι" ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τις παιδαγωγὸς, ἢ πατὴρ ἄριστος τοῖς 
τῆς πίστεως ὁρώμενος ὀφθαλμοῖς καταστέλλει τὸν γέλωτα' περικόπτει τὰς 
ἡδονὰς τὰς ἀτόπους" τὰ σκιρτήματα τῆς σαρκὸς ἅπαντα ἀναιρεῖ, ἅπερ ἐκεῖ 
οὐκ ἔστι διαφυγεῖν" τίνος ἕνεκεν ; Ore χοροὶ ἀνδρῶν αὔριον τὸ προάστειον 
καταλαμβάνουσιν. ἡ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων ὄψις καὶ τὸν βουλόμενον σωφρονεῖν 
ἄκοντα ὑπεξάγει πολλάκις πρὸς τὴν τῆς αὐτῆς ἀσχημοσύνης μίμησιν" καὶ 
μάλιστα ὅταν καὶ ὁ διάβολος μέσος ἐκείνοις παρῇ" καὶ γὰρ πάρεστιν ὑπὸ 
τῶν πορνικῶν ᾷσμάτων, ὑπὸ τῶν αἰσχρῶν ῥημάτων, ὑπὸ τῆς δαιμονικῆς 
πομπῆς καλούμενος. 


Cuape. VII. ὃ 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 149 


under a vine or fig-tree, near the monument of the martyr, 
and thereby secure their conscience from condemnation. For 
the very sight of the martyr being near them, and, as it were, 
standing by their table, would not suffer their pleasure to run 
out into excess, and degenerate into sin; but as a good father 
or a master, being looked upon with the eye of faith, would 
restrain all ridiculous mirth, and cut off all indecent pleasures, 
and take away all lascivious motions of the flesh, which could 
not be avoided if they went to the vain pomps of Daphne, 
where the devil reigned in the midst of them.” It appears 
from this, that these feasts were then managed with great 
sobriety and gravity ; and chiefly used, as they were originally 
designed, for the use and benefit of the poor. And, as such, 
they are recommended by Nazianzen’, Theodoret”, Paulinus?, 
and others, being indeed nothing more than those common 
‘feasts of charity,’ called ‘agapze,’ and derived from apostolical 
practice, only now applied to the festivals of the martyrs. 
But as the best things, by the corruptions of men, often 
degenerate into abuses, so it fared with this laudable practice. 
Some made use of it only as an opportunity of gratifying their 
covetousness and desires of filthy lucre; others hence took 
occasion to indulge themselves in revellings and dancings ; and 


y Nazianz. Carm. x. de Diversis Vitze Generibus. (Colon, 1690. tom. 11. 
p. 80.) 

Οὐδ᾽ ἱερὴν ἐπὶ δαῖτα γενέθλιον ἠὲ θανόντος, 
Ἤ τινα νυμφιδίην σὺν πλεόνεσσι θέων. 

z Theodoret. Therapeutic. Serm. viii. (Schulze, 1769. vol. iv. p. 920.) Οὗτοι 
πάντες, ζῶντες piv ἦσαν περίβλεπτοι, καὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους ἐνίκων, καὶ 
μετὰ τὰς νίκας πομπὰς ἐπετέλουν καὶ ἑορτάς" ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐτελεύτησαν, οὐδὲν 
τῶν πολλῶν διαφέρουσιν" οὔτε γὰρ τάφους ἔχουσιν ἐπισήμους, οὔτε δημο- 
Et p. 923. ᾿Αντὶ τῶν Πανδίων, καὶ Δια- 
σίων, καὶ Διονυσίων, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὑμῶν ἑορτῶν, Πέτρου, καὶ Παύλον, 


θοινίαις ἐτησίοις γεραίρονται. 





καὶ Θωμᾶ, καὶ Σεργίου, καὶ Μαρκέλλου, καὶ Λεοντίου, καὶ ἸΠαντελεήμονος, 
καὶ ᾿Αντωνίνου, καὶ Μαυρικίου, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μαρτύρων, ἐπιτελοῦνται 
SnpoOowia καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς πάλαι πομπείας, καὶ αἰσχρουργίας, καὶ αἰσχροῤ- 
ῥημοσύνης, σώφρονες ἑορτάζονται πανηγύρεις, οὐ μέθην ἔχουσαι, καὶ κῶμον, 
καὶ γέλωτα, ἀλλ᾽ ὕμνους θείους, καὶ ἱερῶν λογίων ἀκρόασιν, καὶ προσευχὴν 
ἀξιεπαίνοις κοσμουμένην δακρύοις. 
4 Paulin. Natal. Felic. (vi. v. 8, seqq.) Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. vi. p. 278. 
Concordate meis, precor, et complaudite, fratres, 
Carminibus, ecastoque animos effundite luxu : 
Gaudia sancta decent et carmina casta fideles, 


150 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


some were so vain as to think, that even rioting and drunken- 
ness, at such times, was for the honour of the martyr. The 
last of these abuses was so notorious, that the Manichees, 
hence, took occasion to rail at the Church, and calumniate her 
as encouraging such abominable practices in her people: which 
though it was a malicious slander in respect of the Church, 
which did all she could to discourage such excesses, yet, in 
respect of the people, the fact was too true, and the charge 
too well grounded to be denied of them all in general. There- 
fore St. Austin, in answer to the objection, is forced to own 
the charge, in part, as true: ‘“‘ I know,” says he, “there are 
many who superstitiously worship graves and pictures: I know 
many that drink luxuriously and excessively over the dead ; 
and when they make a feast for the deceased, bury themselves 
over those that lie buried in the graves; and, after all, place 
their gluttony and drunkenness to the account of religion. 
But I advise you to leave off railing at the Catholic Church 
for this; for in speaking against the morals of such men, you 
only condemn those whom the Church herself condemns, and 
daily labours to correct them as wicked children.” ‘They 
who make themselves drunk in the memorials of the martyrs,” 
says he again in another place, answer to the same objec- 
tion’, ‘‘are so far from having the approbation of the Church, 


b Aug. de Morib. Eccles. Cathol. ¢. xxxiv. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 531, B 12.) 
Novi multos esse sepulcrorum et picturarum adoratores: novi multos esse, qui 
luxuriosissime super mortuos bibant, et epulas cadaveribus exhibentes, super 
sepultos se ipsos sepeliant, et voracitates ebrietatesque suas deputent religioni. 
(76.) Nune vos illud admoneo, ut aliquando Ecclesize Catholicze maledicere 
desinatis, vituperando mores hominum, quos et ipsa condemnat, et quos quotidie 
tamquam malos filios corrigere studet. 

¢ Aug. cont. Faustum, lib. xx. ¢. xxi. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 247, C 6.) 
Qui se in memoriis martyrum inebriant, quomodo a nobis adprobari possunt, 
quum eos, si in domibus suis id faciant, sana doctrina condemnet? Sed aliud 
est quod docemus, aliud quod sustinemus, aliud quod przecipere jubemur, aliud 





quod emendare preecipimur, et donee emendemus tolerare compellimur. 
Ambros. de Elia et Jejunio, 6. xvii. Quid obtestationes potentium loquor ? 
Bibamus, inquiunt, pro salute imperatoris; et qui non biberit, sit reus indevo- 
tionis . . . Hee vota ad Deum pervenire judicant, sicut illi, qui calices ad 
sepulchra martyrum deferunt, atque illic in vesperam bibunt, et aliter se 
exaudiri posse non credunt. O stultitiam hominum, qui ebrietatem sacrificium 
putant: qui existimant illos ebrietate placari, qui jejunio passiones sustinere 


Cuap. VIL § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 151 


that she condemns them for being guilty of that vice in their 
own private houses: it is one thing that we are commanded to 
teach; and another thing that we are commanded to correct, 
and forced to tolerate and endure, till we can amend it.” St. 
Ambrose happily corrected this intemperance at Milan‘, by 
prohibiting all such feasts in the church: and St. Austin® 
made use of his example to persuade Aurelius, the primate of 
Carthage, to use his authority to do the same in the African 
Churches. Upon which Aurelius got a canon made in the 
third Council of Carthage, obliging the clergy to refrain from 
all such feasting in the church, and as much as in them lay, to 
restrain the people from the same practice. This had been 
prohibited before by the Council of Laodicea*, forbidding all 
feasts of charity, and all eating, and spreading of tables in the 
church; and it was prohibited afterwards by the second 
Council of Orleans in France, where a general canon was 
made", “That no one should pretend to pay any vow in the 
church by singing, or drinking, or any loose behaviour whatso- 
ever: because God was rather provoked than appeased by such 
vows as these.” There was another evil custom prevailing in 
France in the time of King Clodoveus II., about the year 650, 
when the first Council of Chalon was held, which endeavoured, 
by a canon, to correct it, viz.', “ That on the festivals of 





didicerunt. Cypr. de duplici Martyrio. (Paris. 1726. p. eelxvi.) Annon vide- 
mus ad Martyrum memorias Christianum a Christiano cogi ad ebrietatem ? 

ἃ [bid. Confess. lib. vi. ον ii. tot. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 86.) (Bened. 1679. 
vol. i. p. 120.) Ne ulla occasio se ingurgitandi daretur ebriosis. 

e Ibid. Epist. Ixiv. ad Aurel. tot. (Bened. 1679. vol. ii. p. 27.) 

f Cone. Carth. III. 6. xxx. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1171.) Ut nulli episeopi vel 
clerici in ecclesia conviventur, nisi forte transeuntes hospitiorum necessitate 
illie reficiantur. Populi etiam ab hujusmodi conviviis, quantum fieri potest, 
prohibeantur. 

& Cone. Laodie. 6. xxviii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1501.) Ὅτι od δεῖ ἐν τοῖς 
κυριακοῖς, ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, τὰς λεγομένας ἀγάπας ποιεῖν, καὶ ἐν τῷ 
οἴκῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐσθίειν καὶ ἀκούβιτα στρωννύειν. 

h Cone. Aurel. II. e. xii. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1781.) Ne quis in ecclesia votum 
suum cantando, bibendo, vel lasciviendo, exsolvat : quia Deus talibus votis irri- 
tatur potius quam placetur. 

i Cone. Cabil. I. ὁ. xix. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 391.) Noscitur valde esse inde- 
corum, quod per dedicationes basilicarum, aut festivitates martyrum, ad ipsa 
sollennia confluentes chorus femineus turpia queedam et obsccena cantica decan- 


152 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


martyrs and dedications of churches, companies of women 
were used to come before the church, singing filthy and 
obscene songs, whilst they should have been at Divine service ; 
whom they therefore ordered to be repelled: and if they 
persisted obstinate in their wickedness, to be prosecuted with 
the severest censures of the Church.” St. Basil mentions 
another abuse of these festivals, which was men’s keeping 
markets at these times and places, under colour of making 
better provision for these feasts: but he smartly rebukes this 
as a great encroachment upon piety, wholly unbecoming such 
solemnities, which were designed purely for prayer and the 
commemoration of the virtues of holy men, for our encourage- 
ment and imitation: and he tells such men‘, “‘ They ought to 
remember the severity of our Saviour, who whipped the buyers 
and sellers out of the temple, when, by their marketings and 
merchandise, they had turned the house of prayer into a den 
of thieves.” There are many other abuses and corruptions 
which crept into the Church at this door in after-ages, such as 
the invocation of saints and martyrs, the worshipping of relics, 
pilgrimages, and visitings of shrines, and the like superstitious 
practices ; which as they were utterly unknown, or disallowed, 
in the purer ages of the Church, so it is none of my business 
here further to pursue. 


tare videntur, dum aut orare debent, aut clericos psallentes audire. Unde 
convenit, ut sacerdotes loci talia a septis basilicarum, vel porticibus ipsarum, ac 
etiam ab ipsis atriis vetare debeant et arcere. Et si voluntarie noluerint 
emendare, aut excommunicari debeant, aut disciplinee aculeum sustinere. 

k Basil. Regul. Major. quest. xl. (Bened. Paris. 1721. vol. ii. p. 386.) ᾿Αλλ’ 
οὐδὲ τὰς ἐν τοῖς μαρτυρίοις γινομένας ἀγορασίας οἰκείας ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος 
δείκνυσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἄλλου τινὸς ἕνεκεν ἐν τοῖς μαρτυρίοις, ἢ ἐν τοῖς περὶ 
αὐτὰ τόποις φαίνεσθαι ἐπιβάλλει Χριστιανοῖς, ἢ προσευχῆς ἕνεκεν, καὶ τοῦ 
εἰς ὑπόμνησιν ἐλθόντας τῆς τῶν ἁγίων ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας μέχρι θανάτου 
ἐνστάσεως πρὸς τὸν ζῆλον τὸν ὕμοιον προτραπῆναι, μεμνημένους τῆς 
φοβερωτάτης ὀργῆς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὅτι καὶ πάντοτε, καὶ πανταχοῦ πραῦς ὧν, 
καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καθὼς γέγραπται; μόνοις τοῖς περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν πωλοῦσι 
καὶ ἀγοράζουσι τὴν μάστιγα ἐπανετείνετο, ὡς τῆς ἐμπορίας τὸν οἶκον τῆς 
προσευχῆς μεταποιούσης εἰς σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. 


Cuar. VII. § 11. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 153 


Sect. XIl—What Festivals observed in Memory of the 
Apostles. 


But it may be inquired, Whether any particular days were 
set apart in memory of the apostles and first disciples of 
Christ? To which I answer, that as many of them as were 
martyrs, and the time and place of their passion was known, 
there is no reason to question but that they had anniversary- 
commemorations among the rest of the martyrs; at least 
from the time that the festivals of martyrs began to be ob- 
served in the Church. Thus the martyrdom of St. Peter and 
St. Paul was observed at Rome, either upon the 29th of June, 
or the 22nd of February: for the day is disputed between 
Bishop Pearson! and Pagi™, and I will not pretend to decide 


1 Pearson. Annal. Cyprian. an. 258. (Oxon. 1682. p. 62.) (p. 50, Fell. 
Amstelod. 1700.) Hujus observationis utilitas diem respicit, quo facta esse 
dicitur translatio, nempe tertium Kalendas Julii; quo die vulgo putant eos 
apostolos passos esse, contra Veterum sententiam, qui ultimo Neronis anno 
eorum martyrium adscribunt. Ultimo enim Neronis anno, vicesimo nono Junii, 
pati non potuere, quia ipse Nero sexto die Junii periit. Sed si alio die depositio 
facta est, alio translatio, quam sequuta est postea solennitas ; salva erit Veterum 
sententia. Et sane ante Pseudo-Isidori zetatem, ante Gesta Pontificalia, nata- 
libus SS. apostolorum Petri et Pauli alius dies adsignabatur. Nam Polemius 
Sylvius in laterculo suo, sacra profanaque festa continente, a.p. 449 evulgato, 
heee habet: viii. Kal. (Martii) depositio SS. Petri et Pauli. De qua varietate 
alibi latius a nobis disputatum est. 

m Pagi, Critic. in Baron, an. 258. sect. iii. (Aug. Vind. 1738. vol. ii. p. 1234.) 
Nihil a Sixto in suo pontificatu gestum reperimus, nisi quod in Indiculo Deposi- 
tionis Martyrum habetur, ‘ Tertio Kalendas Julii, Petri in catacumbas, et Pauli 
Ostiense, Tusco et Basso Coss.’ Bucherius quum hoc arcanum non intelligeret, 
scripsit in margine: ‘ Nescio, quid heic sibi velint hi Consules, forte aliunde 
luxati” Verum non de sanctorum Apostolorum passionis, sed de translationis 
tempore heic agitur. Idem habet Gestorum pontificalium auctor, sed Pontifices 
permutavit, ut szepe solet, et pro Sixto Cornelium posuit, indeque Pseudo- 
Isidorus eamdem historiam fictitize Cornelii Epistolee inseruit. Caius, qui circa 
annum Christi 200 scripsit, tradit, apostolorum tropzea tune temporis in Vati- 
cano et Ostiensi adservata fuisse. Heec igitur tropeea in catacumbas transtulisse 
videtur Sixtus, magis in dies seeviente persecutionis ardore, ut ibi tutius 
stationes haberi possent. Ita recte Pearsonius, qui subjungit, ‘ Hujus observa- 
tionis utilitas, ete. See note (1). Heee Pearsonius, cujus librum, in quo de ea 
varietate agit, non vidi. Verum enimvero observatio hee vanissima. Petrus 
enim non ultimo Neronis anno, sed undecimo martyrium subiit, ut suo loco 
demonstravi, ejusque Natale die vicesimo nono Junii celebratum. Sed quia 
translationes sanctorum eo seepe die, quo ad Deum migrarunt, vel colebantur, 


~ 


4 


154 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


the controversy between them. But it is generally agreed, 
both by the ancients and moderns, that they both suffered 
martyrdom at the same time, in the persecution under Nero, 
at Rome. This Eusebius" shows out of Caius Romanus, 
Tertullian, Origen, and Dionysius of Corinth; who say, that 
the one was crucified, and the other beheaded; and that their 
trophies or monuments, were the one in the Via Ostiensis, and 
the other in the Vatican, till Pope Xystus removed them into 
the catacombs, or subterraneous vaults, as the old ‘ Indiculus 
Depositionis Martyrum’ calls them, for greater security in the 
heat of persecution. And here it was, that St. Jerome says °, 


fieri solitee erant, is dies a Sixto ad eam translationem faciendam electus, quod 
etiam in S. Urbani papee translatione preestitum fuisse anno 23] notavimus. 
(iv.) Neque refert, quod in laterculo Sylvii legitur. Hine enim tantum inferen- 
dum, aliam SS. apostolorum translationem, qua etiam ‘ depositionis’? nomine ab 
antiquis designatur, in festo cathedree S. Petri factam esse. Nam viii. Kalendas 
Martii cathedram S. Petri, non vero natalem ejus celebratum fuisse, certum fit 
ex Indiculo Depositionis Martyrum, laterculo Sylvii antiquiore ; in eo enim 
legitur, ‘Octavo Kalendas Martii, natale Petri de cathedra ;’ ubi vides, etiam 
natalis nomen cuilibet festo attributum fuisse. 

n Euseb. lib. 11. c. xxv. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 53, Ὁ 8.) (Reading, 1720. 
p- 83, 31.) Παῦλος δὴ οὖν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτμηθῆναι; 
καὶ Πέτρος ὡσαύτως ἀνασκολοπισθῆναι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἱστοροῦνται" καὶ πιστοῦ- 
ταί γε τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἡ Πέτρου καὶ ἸΤαύλου εἰς δεῦρο κρατήσασα ἐπὶ τῶν 
αὐτόθι κοιμητηρίων πρόσρησις" οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἧττον καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνὴρ, 
Γάϊος ὄνομα, κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον Ῥωμαίων γεγονὼς ἐπίσκοπον" ὃς δὴ Πρόκλῳ 
τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας προϊσταμένῳ γνώμης ἐγγράφως διαλεχθεὶς, αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα 
περὶ τῶν τόπων, ἔνθα τῶν εἰρημένων ἀποστόλων τὰ ἱερὰ σκηνώματα κατα- 
τέθειται, φησίν. Ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι" ἐὰν γὰρ 
θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν, ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿Ωστίαν, εὑρήσεις 
τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν" ὡς δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν 
ἄμφω καιρὸν ἐμαρτύρησαν, Κορινθίων ἐπίσκοπος Διονύσιος ἐγγράφως Ῥωμαίοις 
ὁμιλῶν, pos πὼς παρίστησιν" ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας, 
τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γεννηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κοριν- 
θίων συνεκεράσατε" καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύ- 
σαντες ἡμᾶς, ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε 
14. 110. wiles 1 9 δ. 
Ὃς (Πέτρος) ἐπὶ τέλει ἐν Ῥώμῃ γενόμενος ἀνεσκολοπίσθη κατὰ κεφαλῆς, 





διδάξ ᾽ , \ . ayer , 
LOASaAVTEC, ἐμαρτυρησαᾶν KATA TOV GUTOY KalooV. 


οὕτως αὐτὸς ἀξιώσας παθεῖν" τί δεῖ περὶ Παύλου λέγειν . . . καὶ ὕστερον 
5 Site ts Ate: pees cones , ee » 
ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐπὶ Νέρωνος μεμαρτυρηκότος" ταῦτα Ὡριγενει κατὰ λέξιν ἐν 
τρίτῳ τόμῳ τῶν εἰς τὴν Τένεσιν ἐξηγητικῶν εἴρηται. 

© Hieron. Comment. in Ezech. ec. xl. (Vallars. Veron. 1734. vol. v. p. 468, B.) 
Solebam cum ezeteris ejusdem eetatis, diebus Dominicis sepulera Apostolorum 
et Martyrum circuire, crebroque cryptas ingredi, quae in terrarum profunda 


defossze, ete. 


Cuap. VII. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 155 


when he was a schoolboy at Rome, he often went with others 
of his companions into the ‘ erypte,’ or ‘ cemeteries’ under- 
ground, to see their sepulchres among the rest of the martyrs. 
So that it being unquestionable that St. Peter and St. Paul 
were crowned with martyrdom at Rome, there is no doubt to 
be made but that their festivals were anciently observed there 
and elsewhere as other festivals of the martyrs. And the like 
may be concluded of all the other apostles, who suffered mar- 
tyrdom in the several countries where they preached the 
Gospel. 


Secr. XII.—The Festival of the Holy Innocents. 


Besides these, the ancient Church kept a festival in memory 
of the holy innocents that were slain at our Saviour’s birth. 
The ancient writers never speak of them but under the title of 
‘ Christian martyrs.’ Cyprian says”, ‘“ The Nativity of Christ 
begun ‘a martyriis infantium,’ ‘immediately with the martyr- 
dom of those infants’ that, from two years old and under, were 
slain for his name. ‘That tender age, which was not yet able 
to fight, was fit to receive a crown. The innocent infants 
were slain for his name, that it might appear that they are 
innocent who are slain for the sake of Christ: and hereby it 
was showed, that no one is free from the danger of perse- 
cution; seeing even such as these were martyred for his 
sake.” To the same purpose, St. Hilary 4 says, ‘ Bethlehem 
flowed with the blood of the martyrs, and that they were 
advanced to eternity by the glory of martyrdom.” So 


P Cyprian. Epist. lvi. al. lviii. ad Thibaritanos. (Oxon. 1682. p. 123.) (p. 257, 
Amstelod.) Christi nativitas a martyriis infantium statim coepit, ut ob nomen 
ejus, a bimatu et infra qui fuerant, necarentur. Aitas, necdum habilis ad 
pugnam, idonea exstitit ad coronam; ut appareret, innocentes esse, qui propter 
Christum necantur, infantia innocens ob nomen ejus occisa est. Ostensum est 
neminem esse a periculo persequutionis immunem, quando et tales martyria 
fecerunt. 

4 Hilar. in Matth. c. i. (Bened. Veron. 1730. vol. i. p. 672, C.) Post Judzo- 
rum insectationem et in exstinguendo eo profanze plebis adsensum, Christus ad 
gentes inanissimis religionibus deditas transit: et Judaeam relinquens, ignoranti 
eum seeculo colendus infertur, Bethlehem, id est, Judeea, martyrum sanguine 
redundante. . . . Non enim non erant ii qui mortui putabantur ; in zeternitatis 


enim profectum per martyrii gloriam efferebantur. 


156 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


St. Austin": ‘“ These infants died for Christ, not knowing it : 
their parents bewailed them, dying martyrs: they could not 
yet speak, and yet for all that they confessed Christ : Christ 
granted them the honour to die for his name: Christ vouch- 
safed them the benefit of being washed from original sin in 
their own blood.” In like manner, Prudentius, in his poetical 
way, thus sets forth their praises’: “ Hail, ye flowers of the 
martyrs, whom the enemies of Christ cut off in your first en- 
trance upon the light, as men do roses when they first appear. 
Ye proto-victims of Christ, ye tender flock of sacrifices, play 
innocently with your crowns and garlands before the very 
altar.” St. Chrysostom was of the same mind, when he said ¢, 
“These infants received no harm by their death: it only 
translated them so much the sooner to the port and haven of 
rest and tranquillity.” And so the author of the ‘ Opus Im- 
perfectum,’ under the name of Chrysostom, speaking of Herod’s 
cruelty, says", “He gave all the infants eternal life for the 
sake of one:” meaning that he made them all martyrs for the 
sake of Christ, whom he thought to have slain among them. 
‘* Before all these,” Trenzeus says’, ““ Christ, when he was an 


τ Aug. de Symbolo, lib. iii. ¢. iv. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 420, C 7.) Mori- 
untur parvuli pro Christo nescientes, parentes plangunt martyres morientes. .. . 
Nec dum loquuntur, et Christum confitentur. ... Preestitit eis Christus, ut pro 
Christo morerentur, preestitit ut suo sanguine ab originali peccato diluerentur. 
-——Id. Epist. xxviii. ad Hieron. See following note (y). Id. de Libero 
Arbitrio, lib. iii, ¢. xxiii. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 474, A 11.) Non frustra etiam 
infantes illos qui, cum Dominus Jesus Christus necandus ab Herode quierere- 
tur, oecisi sunt, in honorem martyrum receptos commendat ecclesia, ete. 

δ Prudent. Cathemerin. Hymn, xii. de Epiphania, v. exxxv. seqq. (Valpy’s 
edit. p. 157.) 





Salvete, flores martyrum, 
Quos lucis ipso in limine 
Christi insecutor sustulit, 
Ceu turbo nascentes rosas. 
Vos, prima Christi victima, 
Grex immolatorum tener, 
Aram ante ipsam simplices 
Palma et coronis luditis. 

* Chrysostom. Hom. ix. in Matth. (Bened. vol. vii. p. 132, D5.) Ti τοίνυν 
ἐβλάβη τὰ παιδία, ἀναιρεθέντα ἐπὶ ὑποθέσει τοιαύτῃ, Kai πρὸς τὸν ἀκύμαν- 
τον ταχέως ἀπενεχθέντα λιμένα; 

ἃ Opus Imperfect. in Matth. ii. (Bened. vol. vi. p. xxxiii. A.) Omnibus 
vitam zternam preestitit propter unum. 


Crap. VII. 8 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 157 


infant, made infants martyrs for himself, and sent them before 
him into his kingdom.” Pope Leo“ and Fulgentius speak of 
them in the same style, as infant-martyrs and co-partners in 
the Passion of Christ, who suffered martyrdom for him without 
knowledge or grief. 

But Origen goes a little further, and not only calls them 
the first fruits of the martyrs, but says* their memorial was 
always celebrated in the Churches, after the manner or order 
of the saints, as being the first martyrs that were slain for 
Christ. And St. Austin says more than once’, “ that the 
Church received them to the honour of her martyrs.” Which 


v Tren. lib. iii. ον xviii. (Venet. 1742. vol. i. p. 205.) Propter hoe et pueros 
eripiebat, qui erant in domo David, bene sortiti illo tempore nasci, ut eos pre- 
mitteret in suum regnum; ipse infans quum esset, infantes hominum martyres 
parans, propter Christum, qui in Bethlehem natus est Jude, in civitate David, 
interfectos secundum Scripturas. 

W Leo, Serm. vii. in Epiphan. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 139.) (Bibl. Patr. tom. 
vii. p. 1010, Ε΄. Lugd. 1677.) (Lugd. 1700. vol. i. p. 98.) Ad hane vos similitu- 
dinem parvulorum mysterium hodiernz festivitatis invitat: et hane vobis 
humilitatis formam adoratus a Magis puer Salvator insinuat: qui ut imitatori- 
bus suis quid glorice pararet, ostenderet, ortus sui tempore editos martyrio con- 
secravit; ut in Bethleem, ubi Christus natus est, geniti, per communionem 
zetatis consortes fierent passionis. 





Fulgent. Hom. iv. de Epiphania et Inno- 
centibus, p. 541. (p. 810, edit. Basil. 1621. 8vo.) Non solum istum puerum 
(Jesum) non invenisti: sed nec illis pueris aliquid nocuisti: immo inscius, quod 
illis proderat, hoc egisti. Per seevitiam quippe tuam sancti sunt martyres; qui 
per infantiam suam fuerant innocentes: quando per gratiam hujus pueri pro 
eo meruerunt mori; priusquam eum possent coram hominibus confiteri. Iste 
itaque puer, qui mundum creavit, qui mundum regit, qui omnia, queecumque 
vult, facit, qui cuneta mirabili atque inseparabili ordine disponit, hoe ordinavit, 
hoe egit, ut per tuam invidiam furiosam illi pueri mortem susciperent pretio- 
sam: et quod eis ad salutem tuam prestare non posses amicus, hoe ad damna- 
tionem tuam faceres inimieus. Ad hoe ergo te permisit infantes occidere, ut 
illos de te faceret triumphare. Te ergo permisit ad nequitiam, illos perduxit 
ad palmam. 

x Origen. Hom. iii. de Diversis, vol. ii. p. 436. (p. 282, G. Paris. 1604.) 
Horum et memoria semper, ut dignum est, in ecclesiis celebratur, secundum 
integrum ordinem sanctorum, ut primorum martyrum, pro Domino occisorum 
et ut ipsa Bethleem primitias Domino martyrum, in qua natus est ipse Salvator, 
obtulisse videatur.+ 

Y Aug. de Libero Arbitrio, lib. iii. 6. xxiii. tom. 1. p. 29. See note (x), p. 156. 
Id. Epist. xxviii. ad Hieron. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 449.) Non frustra 
etiam infantes illos, qui, quum Dominus noster Jesus Christus necandus ab 
Herode quzereretur, occisi sunt, in honorem martyrum receptos commendat 
ecclesia. 





158 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


seems to imply, that some peculiar festival was appointed for 
their commemoration; but whether this at first was a distinct 
festival from the Epiphany, or rather kept on the same day, is 
a matter that may bear some dispute: because Prudentius, 
Fulgentius, and Leo, speak of the Innocents only upon this 
day, and not upon any other occasion. 


Secr. XIII.—The Festival of the Maccabees. 


But we are further to observe, that anciently they celebrated 
not only the festivals of the Christian martyrs, but also some 
of the more eminent martyrs of the Old Testament: such as 
the seven Maccabees, whose courage in opposing the tyrant 
Antiochus Epiphanes, and dying for the defence of the Jewish 
law, seems to have been generally over the whole Christian 
Church in the fourth century, about which time we find 
abundance of panegyrics made upon them. Chrysostom has 
three homilies upon this occasion”, wherein he speaks of their 
festival being celebrated at Antioch with more than ordinary 
concourses of people. St. Austin says*, the Christians had a 
church there called by the name of the Maccabees: and he 
himself has two sermons upon their festival, in which he 
shows that they were esteemed, in reality, Christian martyrs. 
And hence it appears, that their feast was solemnly observed 
in the African Churches ; for he begins his first homily with 
these words, ‘Istum diem nobis solennem fecit gloria Macca- 
beeorum, ‘This day is made a festival to us by the glory of 
the Maccabees.’ Gregory Nazianzen has a sermon upon the 
same occasion, wherein he says‘, ‘‘ This present festival is kept 
in memory of the Maccabees, who though they are not had in 
so great honour by some, because they strove not for mastery 


2 Chrysost. (Bened. vol. ii. pp. 622. 628. 631.) 

a Aug. Hom. cix. de Diversis. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. p. 851, E.) Sanctorum 
Machabzeorum basilica esse in Antiochia preedicatur: in illa scilicet civitate, 
que regis ipsius persecutoris nomine vocatur. 

Ὁ Hom. cix. ex. 

¢ Nazianz. Orat. xxii. de Maccabeeis. (Colon. 1690. tom. i. p. 397, D.) Τούτων 
(MakkaBaiwy) ἡ παροῦσα πανήγυρις, οὐ παρὰ πολλοῖς μὲν τιμωμένων, OTe 
μὴ μετὰ Χριστὸν ἡ ἄθλησις" πᾶσι δὲ τιμᾶσθαι ἀξίων, ὅτι περὶ τῶν πατρίων 
ἡ καρτερία. 


Cuap. VII. ὃ 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 159 


by the grace of Christ, yet they are worthy of all due respect 
and veneration, because they contended valiantly for the laws 
of their fathers, and the truth of religion as then revealed to 
them.” We find the like discourses among those of Gauden- 
tius, bishop of Brixia*, and Kusebius Emisenus’, and Leo‘, 
bishop of Rome. Which manifestly shows that this was a 
festival of great note throughout the whole Church: and the 
reason is given by Gregory Nazianzen£: ‘‘ Because they were 
really admirable in their actions, yea, more admirable in one 
respect than the martyrs that came after Christ. For,” says 
he, ‘‘if they suffered martyrdom so bravely before Christ’s 
coming, what would they not have done had they lived after 
him, and had the death of Christ for their example?” For 
this reason, this festival was particularly celebrated all over 
the Christian Church: but upon what day I am not yet able 
to inform the reader, save only that the Roman Martyrology 
places it upon the first of August. 


Sect. XIV.—Of the general Festival of all the Martyrs. 


But 1 must acquaint him with one thing more concerning 
these festivals of the martyrs: that because the number of 
them was exceeding great, and every particular Church could 
not observe them all, therefore they chose to have one solemn 
day for the general commemoration of all the martyrs. This 
was on a certain day, not long after Pentecost or Whitsunday, 
as we learn from one of Chrysostom’s homilies upon this occa- 


ἃ Gaudent. Serm. xv. de Maccabzeis. (Maxima Bibl. V. P. vol. v. p. 966.) 
Si quis vestrum fortasse miretur, Judzeos viros supplicia pro legis praecepto 
perpessos, nunc a Christiana plebe inter sanctos Martyres honorari. 

e Euseb. Emisen. Hom. de iisdem. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. vii. p. 626, A 11.) 
Ecce septem fratres tormenta, martyrum jam corde, despiciunt. 

f Leo, Serm. xix. de Septem Maccabeeis. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 454.) Nee 
immerito digne Ecclesia horum exultat martyrio. Valerian. Hom. xviii. de 
Maccabeeis. (Galland. vol. x. p. 150.) Tot Deo martyres tradidit quot mater 
filios acquisivit. 

8 Nazianz. Orat. xv. (Bened. 1778. vol. 1. p. 286.) Kai ot πρὸ τῶν Χριστοῦ 
παθῶν μαρτυρήσαντες, Ti ποτε δράσειν ἔμελλον μετὰ Χριστὸν διωκόμενοι, 





καὶ τὸν ἐκείνου ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν μιμούμενοι θάνατον ; οἱ γὰρ χωρὶς ὑποδείγματος 
τοιούτου, τοσοῦτοι τὴν ἀρετὴν, πῶς οὐκ ἂν ὥφθησαν γενναιότεροι, μετὰ τοῦ 
ὑποδείγματος κινδυνεύοντες ; 


160 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


sion, where he says", ‘There are not yet seven days past, 
since we celebrated the great and holy solemnity of Pentecost ; 
and now again a quire, or rather a camp and army of martyrs, 
overtakes us, an army like the camp of angels which appeared 
to Jacob.” This seems, therefore, to have been either what 
we now call Trinity-Sunday, or some day very near it. For 
the Greeks called this Κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων, ‘the Sunday of all 
the martyrs,’ as Leo Allatius' shows out of Callistus’s ‘ Synax- 
arion, and Leo Sapiens, who has an oration upon this day, en- 
titled, ‘ Upon all the holy martyrs... The name Trinity-Sun- 
day is but of modern use: the ancients had no such festival, 
because every Lord’s-day was esteemed the feast of the Holy 
Trinity. Durandus says*, “Gregory the Fourth, about the 
year 834, first instituted the festival of the Holy Trinity, and 
that of the angels together.” But Potho Prumiensis will not 
allow it to be so ancient: for he says!, it began to be used in 


h Chrysostom. Hom. lxxiv. de Martyribus totius orbis. (Bened. 1718. vol. il. 
p. 711.) "EE οὗ τὴν ἱερὰν πανήγυριν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς ἐπετελέσαμεν, οὔπω 
παρῆλθεν ἡμερῶν ἑπτὰ ἀριθμὸς, καὶ πάλιν κατέλαβεν ἡμᾶς μαρτύρων χορὸς, 
μᾶλλον δὲ μαρτύρων παρεμβολὴ, καὶ παράταξις τῆς παρεμβολῆς τῶν ἀγγέ- 
λων, ἣν ὁ πατριάρχης εἶδεν ᾿Ιακὼβ, κατ᾽ οὐδὲν οὖσα χείρων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφάμιλλος 
αὐτοῖς καὶ ἴση. 

i Allat. de Hebdomad. et Dominicis Greecor. n. xxxi. (Col. Agripp. 1648. 
p. 1463.) Post Pentecosten sequuntur hebdomades et Dominicze, quee Matthei, 
quod in illis evangelium Mattheei per sectiones inter officia legatur, dicuntur ; 
nee a precedente Dominica, sed subsequente, numerantur. Feria itaque 
secunda et tertia proximze Dominicz Pentecostes erunt ferize primze hebdoma- 
dis; quia Dominica proxime sequens erit prima post Pentecosten apud Latinos, 
apud Greecos erit πρώτη τοῦ Ματθαίου. Ty αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ, κυριακῇ μετὰ τὴν 
πεντηκοστὴν, τὴν τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ τῆς οἰκουμένης, inquit Callistus in Synax- 
ario, ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ, Λιβύᾳ, καὶ Εὐρώπῃ, Βοῤῥᾷ τε καὶ Νότῳ ἁγίων πάντων ἑορτὴν 
ἑορτάζομεν. Edita est Oratio Leonis imperatoris, Κυριακῇ μετὰ τὴν πεντη- 
κοστὴν εἰς τοὺς ἁπανταχοῦ γῆς ἁγίους πάντας, ὅτε τὸν ἀλάστορα τοῦ γέ- 
νους οἰκείοις ἄθλοις κατέβαλον, καὶ ἡ παγκόσμοις ἐκκλησία τούτους τιμᾷ. 

k Durand. Rational. lib. vii. c. xxxiv. (Antverp. 1614. vol. ii. p. 451. sec. fol.) 
Instituens tune fieri festum .. . sed etiam Trinitatis, Angelorum, ete. 

! Potho, de Statu Domus Dei, lib. iii. See Hospin. de Festis, p. 73. (p. 113. 
Geney. 1674.) Miramur satis, quid visum fuerit hoe tempore quibusdam monas- 
teriis, mutare colorem optimum, novas quasdam inducendo celebritates. Num- 
quid patribus doctiores aut devotiores sumus? Superba mente przesumimus, 
quidquid ipsorum in talibus prudentia preeterivit. Neque vero novi in hujus- 
modi aliquid invenire possumus, quod ecorum quiverit diligentiam preeteriisse. 
Que igitur ratio hee festa celebranda nobis induxit? Frustra videlicet 5. 
Trinitatis, et festum transfigurationis Domini, ete. 


Cuap. VII. 8 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 161 


the monasteries not long before his time, which was about the 
year 1150. And it appears from a decree of Alexander the 
Third, that it was not observed at Rome in his time (an. 1179). 
For he says™, ‘‘ The feast of the Holy Trinity is diversely ob- 
served, according to the custom of different countries ; some 
keeping it on the octaves of Pentecost, and others on the first 
Sunday before Advent: but in the Roman Church it is not 
used to be celebrated as any particular festival; for we say 
every day, ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to 
the Holy Ghost,’ and such other things as appertain to the 
praise of the Trinity.” So that Trinity-Sunday being wholly 
unknown to the ancients under that particular name, it is 
most probable this was the day on which a general commemo- 
ration was made of all the martyrs in the world, as St. Chry- 
sostom’s homily bears it in the title. For the multitude of 
martyrs being vastly great, it was impossible that particular 
days should be assigned to each of them: and therefore every 
Church chiefly celebrated the days of her own martyrs (which 
often came once or twice in a week",) and added one solemn 
day for the commemoration of them all in general: of which 
I have nothing more particularly to remark, but that the 
ancients, on this day, commonly exerted themselves, and 
showed the utmost of their skill in the art of oratory (of 
which many of them were great masters) in describing the 
passions, and setting forth the glory of those victories and 
trophies that were so frequently and so surprisingly acquired 
by the martyrs. It is a beautiful stroke of Chrysostom’s pen, 
in his homily upon this occasion, with which I will end this 


τὰ Decretal. Gregor. lib. ii. tit. ix. de Feriis, ο. ii. (Pithceus, vol. ii. p. 81.) 
Festivitas S. Trinitatis, secundum consuetudinem diversarum regionum, a qui- 
busdam consuevit in octavis Pentecostes, ab aliis in Dominica prima ante 
Adventum Domini celebrari. Ecclesia siquidem Romana in usu non habet, 
quod in aliquo tempore hujusmodi celebret spiritualiter festivitatem ; quum 
singulis diebus Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, et czetera similia dican- 
tur, ad laudem pertinentia Trinitatis. (Max. B. V. P. vol. xviii. p. 489.) 
Juxta Romanum Ordinem nullum diem specialiter ascribi debere solennitati 
Sanctze Trinitatis. See also Microlog. de Observat. Eeeles. ¢.1x. (Bibl. Patr. 
tom. xvill. pp. 489, 490, Lugd. 1677.) 

n Chrysostom, Hom. xl. in Juventin. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 578.) Homil. Ixv. de 
Martyr. Theodoret. Serm. viii. de Martyr. See Book xiii, chap. ix. sect. v. 
vol. iv. p. 367. 


VOL. VII. M 











162 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


chapter upon these festivals of the martyrs: ‘‘ The devil,” says 
he°, “introduced death into the world, but the wisdom of God 
turned it to our honour and glory: for hereby he opened the 
way to martyrdom; and made our destruction become the 
occasion of a crown. The devil designed to ruin us by death ; 
but Christ inverted his design, and makes use of death to in- 
troduce us into heaven by martyrdom. Here, as in all other 
battles, there were armies engaged on both sides, the martyrs 
on the one side, and tyrants on the other. The tyrants were 
armed, and the martyrs naked: yet they that were naked, got 
the victory; and they that carried arms, were vanquished. 
What an astonishing engagement was this! He that is 
beaten, proves victor over him that beats him: he that is 
bound, overcomes him that is at liberty; he that is burnt, 
tames him that burns him; and he that dies, vanquishes him 
that puts him to death! These are astonishing things: but it 
is grace that works these miracles ; they are above the strength 
of nature.” Thus the ancients extolled their martyrs, those 
heroes of Christianity, by just praises and commendations, and 
endeavoured to provoke others to piety and virtue by their 
example: which was the great end and design of these holy 
solemnities and frequent meetings at the memorials of the 
martyrs. 


ο Chrysostom. Hom. Ixxiv. de Martyr. totius orbis. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. 
p- 711, Ο 10.) Ὥστε μὴ ἀλγῶμεν, ὅτι ἐγενόμεθα θνητοὶ, ἀλλ᾽ εὐχαριστῶμεν, 
ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ θανάτου ἀνεῴχθη ἡμῖν τὸ στάδιον τοῦ μαρτυρίου: ἀπὸ τῆς 
φθορᾶς ἐλάβομεν ὑπόθεσιν τῶν βραβείων: ἐντεῦθεν ἔχομεν ἀφορμὴν τῶν 
παλαισμάτων" Ὁρᾷς σοφίαν Θεοῦ" πῶς τὸ μέγιστον τῶν κακῶν, τὸ κεφάλαιον 
τῆς ἡμετέρας συμφορᾶς, ὕπερ εἰσήγαγεν ὁ διάβολος, τὸν θάνατον λέγω, 
τοῦτον εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν ἡμετέραν μετέβαλε, διὰ τούτου πρὸς τὰ τοῦ 
μαρτυρίου βραβεῖα τοὺς ἀθλητὰς ἄγων; . .. ᾿Εκεῖνος εἰσήγαγεν ἵνα ἀπ- 
ολέσῃ, καὶ πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἐπαναγαγὼν πᾶσαν ἐκκόψῃ σωτηρίας ἐλπίδα" ὁ 
Χριστὸς δὲ αὐτὸ λαβὼν μετέστρεψε, καὶ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἡμᾶς δι’ αὐτοῦ 
πάλιν εἰσήγαγε. . .. Καὶ ἐνταῦθα δύο παρατάξεις, ἡ μὲν τῶν μαρτύρων, ἡ 
δὲ τῶν τυράννων" ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν τύραννοί εἰσι καθωπλισμένοι, οἱ δὲ μάρτυρες 
γυμνῷ τῷ σώματι μάχονται, καὶ ἡ νίκη τῶν γυμνῶν, οὐ καθωπλισμένων, 
γίνεται. Τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐκπλαγείη, ὅτι ὁ μαστιζόμενος περιγίνεται τοῦ μαστί- 
ζοντος, ὁ δεδεμένος τοῦ λελυμένου, ὁ κατακαιόμενος τοῦ καίοντος, ὁ ἀπυ- 
θνήσκων τοῦ ἀναιροῦντος ; εἶδες πῶς ταῦτα ἐκείνων φρικωδέστερα ; ἐκεῖνα 
μὲν εἰ καὶ φοβερὰ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν γίνεται. ταῦτα δὲ πᾶσαν ὑπερβαίνει 
φύσιν, καὶ πᾶσαν πραγμάτων ἀκολουθίαν" ἵνα μάθῃς, ὕτι τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ 
χάριτός ἐστι τὰ κατορθούμενα. 


πὰρ. VITE. 81. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 163 


CHAPTER VIII. 


OF SOME OTHER FESTIVALS OF A LATER DATE AND LESSER 
OBSERVATION. 


Sect. I.—Of the Enczenia, or ‘ Feasts of Dedications of 
Churches. 


Bestpr these festivals, which were of greater antiquity in the 
Church, there were some others added in the fourth and fifth 
centuries, which, either for their novelty, or their more limited 
observation, were far inferior to the former, and of less esteem 
in the Church. Among these we may reckon the ‘ enceenia,’ 
or ‘anniversary feasts,’ kept in memory of the dedication of 
churches. ‘The first dedication, or consecration of churches 
(which began in the time of Constantine, after the demolishing 
of them in the Diocletian persecution, and rebuilding of them 
in the peaceable times that succeeded afterwards), has been 
largely spoken of under another head*. Here I only take 
notice of one particular, which properly concerns this place ; 
that is, the anniversary festival, which was sometimes observed 
in memory of the first dedication of churches. Sozomen gives 
a famous instance of this in the Church of Jerusalem: “ For,” 
he says Ὁ, ‘in memory of the dedication of their church, which 
Constantine built to the honour of our Saviour, they were used 
to keep an anniversary festival, which lasted for eight days 
together, during which time both they of the Church, and all 


a Book viii. chap. ix. sect. i. vol. 11. p. 529. 

b Sozom. lib. ii. ὁ. xxvi. (Reading, p. 81.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 393, 
D 6.) Ἑτήσιον ταύτην ἑορτὴν λαμπρῶς μάλα ἄγει ἡ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων 
ἐκκλησία: ὡς καὶ μυήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ τελεῖσθαι, καὶ ὀκτὼ ἡμέρας ἐφεξῆς ἐκκλη- 
σιάζειν: συνιέναι τε πολλοὺς σχεδὸν ἐκ πάσης τῆς ὑφ᾽ ἥλιον, ot καθ᾽ 
ἱστορίαν τῶν ἱερῶν τόπων πάντοθεν συντρέχουσι κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ταύτης 
τῆς πανηγύρεως. 

Μ 2 


1(4. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 
strangers, which flocked thither in abundance, held ecclesias- 
tical assemblies, and met together for Divine service.” And 
from this example the custom was received and propagated in 
other Churches: for Bede says*, Gregory the Great, in his 
letters to Austin and Mellitus, the first Saxon bishops here 
in England, ordered them to allow the people liberty, on their 
annual feasts of the dedications of their churches, to build 
themselves booths round about the church, and there feast and 
entertain themselves with eating and drinking, in lieu of their 
ancient sacrifices while they were heathens. Hospinian says 4, 
“Τὴ the German tongue these feasts were called ‘ kyrchweihe,’” 
that is, ‘ church-feasts ;> whence comes our English name, 
‘church-wakes,’ which is of the same importance. 


Sect. I1—Of the Anniversary Festivals of Bishops 
Ordinations. 

Another sort of festivals, much of the same nature with the 
former, were the anniversary solemnities which bishops held in 
their own churches in memory of their ordination. These are 
sometimes called ‘natales episcopi vel episcopatus,’ ‘ bishops’ 
birthdays ;’ which denote not the days of their natural birth, 
nor yet the days of their death, as in the former case of 
martyrs, but the days of their ordination or nativity to the 
episcopal office, or throne of the church: in like manner, as 
we have showed before*, the ‘ natales imperatorum’ often 
denotes, not their natural birthdays, but the days of their 
inauguration or advancement to the throne of the empire. 


¢ Bed. Hist. lib. i. 6. xxx. (Lond. 1838. p. 80.) Quia boves solent in sacrificia 
dzmonum multos occidere, debet eis etiam hac de re aliqua sollemnitas immu- 
tari, Ut die dedicationis vel natalitiis sanctorum martyrum, quorum illic 
reliquize ponuntur, tabernacula sibi circa easdem ecclesias, que ex fanis com- 
mutatee sunt, de ramis arborum faciant, et religiosis conviviis sollemnitatem 
celebrent, nee diabolo jam animalia immolent, sed ad laudem Dei in esu suo 
animalia occidant, et Donatori omnium de satietate sua gratias referant, ete. 

4 Hospin. de Festis, in Appendice de Enceniis, p. 113. (p. 173, edit. 
Genevens. 1674.) Nos Germani ea vocamus ‘kyrchweihe,’ vel corrupte ‘ kyrwi,’ 
aut ‘kylwi:’ quo significamus, festa hee originem sumsisse a templorum dedi- 
cationibus, in quibus populus frequentius concurrere solebat ad audiendum 
verbum Dei. (Tigur. 1611. p. 161.) 

€ Book xx. chap. i. sect. iv. p. 8. 


Cua. VIIL 8 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 165 


That such days were observed as anniversary festivals, 1 have 
had oceasion once before to show out of several homilies of 
St. Austin and Pope Leo, which were preached by them upon 
these occasions. ΤῸ which I shall here add what St. Austin δ 
says also of the Donatists, that they agreed with the Church 
in this practice. For though Optatus Gildonianus, one of 
their bishops, was a very base man, yet they made no scruple 
to celebrate his ‘ natalitia,’ ‘the anniversary of his ordination,’ 
with great solemnity, honouring him with the kiss of peace 
in the midst of the holy mysteries, and mutually giving and 
receiving the eucharist from him; which circumstances plainly 
show, that by his ‘ natalitials’ nothing else can be meant but 
‘the anniversary of his ordination,’ when it was usual for the 
bishop to invite his neighbouring bishops to join in the 
solemnity with him, which was observed with reading, 
psalmody, preaching, praying, and receiving the eucharist, as 
other solemn festivals. Paulinus likewise" takes notice of 
this particular circumstance, “That they were used to invite 
their fellow-bishops to come and celebrate these their spiritual 
nativities with them: for so,” he says, ‘‘he himself was ivited 
by Anastasius, bishop of Rome, to celebrate his birthday.” 
The like we find in the epistles! of St. Ambrose, Pope Hilary, 
and several others. 

Now the design of these anniversaries was very excellent, to 
put bishops in mind of the great and weighty burden that was 
laid upon them, and to be a fresh occasion of recollecting with 
themselves how faithfully, and conscientiously, and carefully, 


f Vol. i. p. 526. book iv. chap. vi. sect. xv. 

& Aug. cont. litt. Petil. lib. ii. 6. xxiii, (Bened. 1700. vol. ix. p. 158, Ὁ 11.) 
Cujus natalitia tanta celebratione frequentabatis, cui pacis osculum inter sacra- 
menta copulabatis, in cujus manibus eucharistiam ponebatis, cui vicissim danti 
manus porrigebatis, ete. 

h Paulin. Epist. xvi. ad Delphinum. (Max. B. V. P. vol. vi. p. 198, C.) Nos 
ipsos ad natalem suum invitare dignatus est. 

i Ambros. Epist. v. ad Felic. (Paris. 1836. vol. iv. p. 211.) Tum ego nostris 
fabulis intexui diem natalis tui. Natalem tuum prosequemur nostris orationi- 
Hilar. Epist. ii. ad Tarracon. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1036.) Lectis in 
conventu fratrum, quos natalis mei festivitas congregarat, litteris vestris. 
Sixt. Epist. ad Joan. Antioch. (Labbe, vol. iii. p. 1261.) Audivit universa 
fraternitas, que ad natalis mei convenerat diem. Anastas. Vit. Adrian. 1. 





bus, ete. 





166 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


they had discharged the trust committed to them. Thus 
St. Austin represents the matter/, in one of his sermons upon 
this occasion: ‘‘ A bishop,” says he, ““ ought to consider every 
day, and every hour, and with a continual care, what a weighty 
dispensation is committed to him, and what an account thereof 
he is to make to his Lord; but when the anniversary-day of 
our ordination returns, then the honour of this office is chiefly 
reflected on, as if it were then first imposed upon us. But 
there is this difference, that on the day when we first received 
the office, we had only to consider how we ought to behave 
ourselves in it; but every day after, and especially on that day 
when the solemnity returns, we not only look forward, and 
with great caution and foresight consider what we ought to do 
for the time to come; but also look back to what is past, and 
carefully recollect what we have already done, that we may go 
on to imitate ourselves, if we have done any thing well ; or, if 
otherwise we have done things that are blame-worthy, be 
careful not to repeat them again in time to come. Therefore, 
on this solemnity of my ordination, I say to those who are my 
debtors, by trespassing against me, ‘ If any man becomes my 


j Aug. Hom. xxiv. ex 1. (Bened. Ant. 1700. vol. v. p. 1038, D.) Die quidem 
omni, et omni hora, curaque omnino continua, dilectissimi, cogitare debet epi- 
scopus, quantze dispensationis sarcinam gerat, qualem de illa rationem Domino 
reddat suo. Verumtamen quum dies anniversarius nostree ordinationis exoritur, 
tune maxime onus hujus officii tamquam tune primum imponatur, attenditur. 
Interest autem, quod eo die, quo id prius suscepimus, tantum quemadmodum 
gerendum esset, cogitavimus: at vero consequentibus diebus, preecipueque illo, 
quo ejus sollemnitas agitur, non solum futura ejus, quemadmodum deinceps 
geri debeant, cauta przaevisione consulimus, verum etiam preeterita, quemad- 
modum gesta sint, sollicita recordatione recolimus: ut nosmet ipsos in bene- 
factis imitemur, et si qua culpanda transierunt, ne repetantur curemus, ut 
ignoscantur oremus: et accusationem diaboli, ubi possumus, recte agendi 
sedulitate fugiamus: ubi autem non possumus, confitendi pictate vincamus. 
Sieut enim futura peccata, negligendo justitiam, committuntur ; ita preeterita, 
injustitiam defendendo, firmantur. Sicut ergo, ne fiant, prospicit caritas, ita 
facta delet humilitas: ut quee jam non possunt reete agendo non admitti, possint 
saltem non superbiendo dimitti. Didicimus quippe dicere Patri nostro, qui est 
in ccelis, ‘Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus 
nostris.’ Quod ut veraciter dicere possimus, etiam inimicos nostros oportet 
utique diligamus: quos tamen habere, nisi cogente justitia, non debemus. Nam 
si homines nobis pro nostris malis meritis inimici sunt, non curandum est, ut 
eis debita dimittamus, sed timendum potius, ne reddamus. Quoniam si nos 
‘merito nostrze iniquitatis oderunt, nos eorum, non ipsi nostri sunt debitores. 


Cuap. VIII. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 167 


enemy, because I tell him the truth; if I seem troublesome 
to any, because I give him good advice; if I am forced to 
offend any man’s will, whilst I seek his profit: to these I say, 
‘Be ye not like to horse and mule, which have no understand- 
ing :’ for these creatures chiefly kick and bite those who take 
care of them, and only touch them gently to cure their wounds. 
So you and 1 are at strife, one with the other; but the cause 
makes a distinction. Thou art an enemy to thy physician, 1 
only an enemy to thy disease; thou art an enemy to my dili- 
gence, I only to thy pestilential distemper. ‘They rewarded 
me evil for good,’ says the Psalmist, ‘but I give myself unto 
prayer.” What did he pray? ‘ Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do. ‘Rejoice, and be exceeding glad,’ 
says Christ, ‘when men revile you, and say all manner of evil 
against you for righteousness’ sake : for great is your reward 
in heaven.’ But we would have you correct your perverseness, 
and acknowledge our charity, and render love for love: we 
would not have our reward augmented by your destruction. 
Next I must speak to those to whom I am a debtor: for I am 
not so vain as to think that I have injured no man since I first 


2. Die ergo isto sollemni episcopatus mei, prius paucis adloquar debitores meos, 
qui mihi nescientes apud Deum suffragantur, dum faciunt debita, quee dimittam, 
ut et mea mihi debita dimitti promerear. Vobis itaque dico sive preesentibus, 
sive absentibus, quibus inimicus efficior verum preedicans, quibus cousulendo 
videor onerosus, quorum requirens utilitatem cogor offendere voluntatem, 
‘Nolite esse sicut equus et mulus, non habentes intellectum.’ Nam et hzee 
jumenta eos calee morsuque appetunt, a quibus curantur, ut curentur eorum 
vulnera, contrectantur. Non parcis, non parco: adversaris, adversor : resistis, 
resisto. Lucta nos comparat, sed causa separat. Tu inimicus es medico, ego 
morbo: tu diligentize meze, ego pestilentize tue. ‘ Retribuebant,’ inquit, ‘ mihi 
mala pro bonis: ego autem orabam.’ Quid orabat, nisi, ‘ Pater, ignosce illis: 
quia nesciunt quid faciunt ” ‘Quum vobis,’ inquit, ‘detraxerint, et dixerint 
omne malum adversum vos propter justitiam, gaudete et exsultate, quia merces 
vestra multa est in ccelis.’ Vos tamen corrigite perversitatem vestram, agno- 
scite caritatem nostram ; reddite dilectionem dilectioni: nolumus majorem cum 
vestra perditione mercedem. Hee debitoribus meis, quibus dimitto, ut dimit- 
tatur mihi, nune pauea suffecerint. 3. Deinde adloquendi sunt paullulum etiam 
illi, quibus debitor sum. Nam sicut ait apostolus, ‘ Greecis et Barbaris, sapien- 
tibus et insipientibus, debitor sum.’ Nam talis debitor etiam ego pro mearum 
virium exiguitate dispensationisque portiuncula, non quibusdam, sed omnibus 
sum. Verum nune de his debitis loquor, que mihi dimitti, non a me exigi 
cupio. Neque enim sic tumore vanze mentis extollor, ut audeam dicere, ex quo 


168 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XX. 


took the burden of this office upon me. I know my infirmity, 
and pray to the Lord my God day and night, and beg the 
assistance of your prayers for the cure of it. If, then, in the 
hurry and difficulty of various cares, I have at any time been 
so distracted, as not to hear the petition of him that made 
suit to me; if I have looked upon any with a sourer counte- 
nance than there was occasion for; if I have given any one 
sharper words than I ought to have done; if I have troubled 
any one that was in anguish of spirit, and needed my help, by 
an improper answer; if I have overlooked any poor man im- 
portuning me, when I was intent upon some other business, or 
put him off to another time, or grieved his soul by any sharp 
sign or intimation ; if I have been above measure angry at any 
one for entertaining any false suspicion of me, as one man is 
apt to be jealous of another; or, if I have humanly suspected 
any one as guilty of a crime, from which his own conscience 
could clear him; I beseech all you, to whom I confess myself 
a debtor for these and the like offences, to believe me to be 
your debtor: for the tender mother, when she is in great 
straits, sometimes treads, though not with her whole weight, 
upon her young, whom she cherishes, and yet ceases not to be 
a mother. Forgive me, that ye may be forgiven: and com- 
mend my care for you to the Lord, that he may mercifully 
pardon my past offences, and guide my way under this burden 


hujus muneris sarcinam porto, nullum a me hominem perperam lesum. Hoe 
cuilibet homini tam multis et molestis actibus occupato atque distento, ne dicam 
impossibile, certe difficile est: quanto magis mihi, qui novi infirmitatem meam, 
quam cum meis et pro me vestris orationibus diebus ac noctibus offero sanan- 
dam Domino Deo meo. Diversarum ergo curarum eestibus ac difficultatibus 
conturbatus, si quem forte non, ut poscebat, audivi, si quem tristius quam opus 
erat aspexi, si in quem verbum durius quam oportebat emisi, si quem corde 
contribulatum et opis indigum responsione incongrua conturbayi, si quem 
pauperem mihi forte in aliud intento importunius instantem vel preetermisi, vel 
distuli, vel etiam nutu aspero contristavi; si cui de me falsi aliquid tamquam 
homini de homine suspicanti, justo acerbius indignatus sum, si quis in sua con- 
scientia non agnovit, quod de illo humanitus suspicatus sum ; vos, quibus pro 
his atque hujusmodi offensis esse me fateor debitorem, simul me vestrum 
eredite dilectorem. Nam pullos, quos fovet, seepe in angustiis, sed non toto 
pedis pondere calcat et mater, nec ideo desinit esse mater. Dimittite, ut dimit- 
tatur vobis. Dimittite amanti vos debita difficultatis, qui nec contra inimicos 
debita tenere debetis crudelitatis. Ad summam, omnes obsecro, commendate 


Cuar. VIII. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCII. 169 


for the future, so as may be pleasing in his eyes, and profitable 
for you; that ye may be found my joy and crown, and not my 
confusion and punishment, at his appearance.” 

These are pious thoughts and excellent contemplations, 
flowing with expressions of great humility and charity: and 
they serve to show us, both what a deep sense the ancients 
had of the weight and burden of the episcopal office, and also 
after what manner they entertained their auditories with use- 
ful discourses upon these anniversary festivals of their own 
ordination. 


Sect. I1].—Of Festivals kept in Memory of any great Deliver- 
ances, or signal Mercies, vouchsafed by God to his Church. 


Another sort of festivals was observed, as annual thanks- 
givings to God, for any great favours and blessings vouchsafed 
by God to his Church. Thus Sozomen says*, the Church of 
Alexandria kept an anniversary thanksgiving upon the twelfth 
of the Kalends of August, that is, the 21st of June, for their 
deliverance from a terrible earthquake, and inundation of the 
sea, in the reign of Julian, which was so great, that boats were 


Domino curam pro vobis meam: hine enim juste expeto pro me vestram, ut 
quicquid mearum est in preeteritum offensionum, propitius ignoscat, non severus 
agnoseat. Quod mihi deinceps temporis sub hac sarcina erit, iter agentem 
regat, et suis oculis placentem vobisque utilem faciat; ut non horrorem et 
poenam meam, sed gaudium et coronam meam, vos ejus conspectus inveniat. 

k Sozom. lib. vi. 6. ii, (Reading, p. 221, 7.) (Vales. 1695. p. 519, C 11.) 
᾿Αμέλει roe τὴν ἡμέραν, καθ᾽ ἣν τάδε συνέβη, ἣν γενέσια τοῦ σεισμοῦ προσ- 
αγορεύουσιν, εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν ᾿Αλεξανδρεῖς ἐτησίαν ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι" λύχνους 
τε πλείστους ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν πόλιν καίοντες, καὶ χαριστήριους λιτὰς τῷ 
Θεῷ προσφέροντες, λαμπρῶς μάλα καὶ εὐλαβῶς ταύτην ἐπιτελοῦσιν. 
Ammian. Mareellin. lib. xxvi. (Lips. 1773. p. 385.) Hoe novatore adhue super- 
stite, cujus actus multiplices docuimus et interitum, diem duodecimum Kalend. 
Augustas, consule Valentiniano primum cum fratre, horrendi terrores per 
omnem orbis ambitum grassati sunt subito, quales nec fabule nee veridicze 
nobis antiquitates exponunt. Paullo enim post lucis exortum, densitate pre- 
via fulgurum acrius vibratorum tremefacta concutitur omnis terreni stabilitas 
ponderis, mareque dispulsum retro fluctibus evolutis abscessit, ut retecta vora- 
gine profundorum, species natantium multiformes limo cernerentur hzerentes : 
valliumque vastitates et montium tune, ut opinari dabatur, suspicerent radios 
solis, quos primigenia rerum sub immensis gurgitibus amandavit. .. . Ingentes 
alice naves extrusze rabidis flatibus, culminibus insedere tectorum, ut Alexan- 





drize contigit. 


170 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


found upon the tops of houses. In memory of this they kept 
a festival, which they called γενέσια τοῦ σεισμοῦ, “ the memorial 
of the earthquake,’ which was observed in the time of Sozomen 
with great solemnity, the people offering eucharistical prayers 
to God, and setting up lights all over the city for joy. The 
Constantinopolitans kept such another festival on the 24th of 
September, in memory of their deliverance from an earthquake, 
which is mentioned by Marcellinus Comes!, in his ‘ Chronicon,’ 
as lasting with great violence for eleven days together. 
Among these, we may also reckon their thanksgiving after 
any signal victories: such as that of Constantine over the 
tyrant Licinius, whereby the Christians were delivered from 
the oppression of all their persecutors, and gave God solemn 
thanks and praise, both in city and country, for the glorious 
success of Constantine’s arms, and their own deliverance, by 
his victories ; as Kusebius™ more than once declares in setting 
forth the great achievements of Constantine for the Christian 
Church. So, he that had ordered all possible honours to be done 
to the martyrs", had himself a share in the panegyries that 
were made upon them, and next, under God, was celebrated as 
the great supporter of the Christian faith. But these seem 
not to have been festivals of long continuance, but to have 
ended their period with the life of the emperor, on whose 
account they were observed in the Church. 


1 Marcellin. Chron. Cos. Basilio. (ap. Euseb. Chronic. p. 45.) Urbs regia per 
xl. (sic ibi legitur) continuos dies adsiduo terree motu quassata magnopere sese 
adflicta deplanxit. Ambze Troadenses porticus corruerunt, aliquantze ecelesice 
vel scissee sunt, vel collapsee. Statua Theodosii magni in foro Tauri super 
cochlidem columnam posita corruit, duobus fornicibus ejusdem collapsis. Hune 
formidolosum diem Byzantii celebrant viii. Kalend. Obtobris. 

m Euseb. Histor. lib. x. ¢. ix. (Vales. 1695. p. 326, D 4.) ᾿Αφῴρητο ἐξ 
ἀνθρώπων πᾶν δέος, τῶν πρὶν αὐτοὺς πιεζόντων᾽ λαμπρὰς δ᾽ ἐτέλουν καὶ 
πανηγυρικὰς ἑορτῶν ἡμέρας, κ. τ. X. Lib. ii. de Vit. Constantin. c. xix. 
Xopot δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ ὕμνοι τὸν παμβασιλέα Θεὸν πρώτιστα πάντων, ὄντα 
δὴ τοῦτον ἐδίδασκον. (p. 372, B 8.) 





" Ibid. de Vit. Constantin. lib. iv. 6. xxiii, Τῷ νεύματι βασιλέως καὶ μαρ- 
τύρων ἡμέρας ἐτίμων, καιρούς θ᾽ ἑορτῶν ἐκκλησίαις ἐδόξαζον. (p. 443.) 


Cuar. VIII. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 1 


=e 
-- 


Sect. 1V.—Of the Feast of the Annunciation. 


But, from this time, festivals grew and multiplied in the 
Church. Hospinian® thinks the feast of the Annunciation 
was as old as Athanasius, because there is mention made of it 
in a sermon that goes under his name?. Others carry it 
higher, to the time of Gregory Thaumaturgus, because there 
is a sermon also attributed to him upon the same subject. 
But the best critics, Dr. Cave’, Du Pint, Hamon l’Estrange’, 
and Rivet', reject both these as spurious writings: and even 
Bellarmine and Labbe reckon them dubious. They were writ- 
ten by Maximus, or some author after the time that the 


© Hospin. de Festis. (p. 69, edit. Genev. 1674.) Festum hoe a pontificiis cele- 
bratur hodie in solius B. Virginis Marize honorem et memoriam ejus, quod con- 
ceptio Filii Dei juxta carnem Marie adnuntiata ab angelo Gabriele fuit. 
Athanasius, qui floruit cirea annos Domini ccexl. primus de festo hoe queedam 
retulit, in enarratione Evangelii de sancta Deipara. Sed ut ex illius verbis 
apparet, non tam in honorem Marize, quam Christi Domini celebratum olim 
fuit: immo hujus potius, quam illius festum fuit. Sic enim Athanasius, ‘ Fes- 
tum hoe,’ inquit, ‘unum est ex Dominicis, atque adeo primarium et prorsus 
venerandum, utpote quod pro ordine et digestione rerum, quze in Evangelio de 
Christo preedicantur, sacrosanctum habeatur, quippe in quod de Filii e ccelis 
descensu agatur.’ 

P Athanas. Serm. de S. Deipara. (Colon. 1686. vol. i. p. 1028.) (tom. 1]. 
p. 393, edit. Paris. 1698.) Iodrepoy ἐπισημαινόμενοι ὑπαναμιμνήσκομεν, OTe 
pia τῶν δεσποτικῶν πρώτη τε Kal πάνσεπτος ἑορτὴ κατὰ τὴν τῶν πραγ- 
μάτων τάξιν καὶ σύνταξιν τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Χριστὸν κηρύγ- 
μασιν, ὑπάρχουσα, τοῦ Osiov εὐαγγελισμοῦ κλητὴ ἁγία ἡμέρα, περὶ τῆς ἐξ 
οὐρανοῦ καταβάσεως τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ κατασκευάζει τὸ κήρυγμα. 

4 Cave, Hist. Litter. (Basil. 1741. vol. i. p. 133.) Scripta ei (Gregorio Thau- 
maturgo) supposita: ‘In adnuntiationem S. Dei Genitricis Sermones iii.,’ 
quorum tertius sub nomine Chysostomi apud Lipomannum et Surium habetur. 
Et ‘Sermo in Annunciationem Deiparze.’ Stylus neutiquam et Athanasii. 
Videtur post exortam Monothelitarum hzeresin scriptus. (Basil. 1741. vol. 1. 
p- 195.) 

τ Du Pin, Bibl. (Utrecht. 1731. vol. i. p. 186.) Les trois sermons de l’annun- 
ciation sont du stile de Procle de Constantinople, comme il a esté remarqué par 
celui qui a fait des Notes sur les Homelies de cet auteur. (vol. ii. p. 41.) L’ho- 
melie de l’annunciation ou de la Vierge est aussi d’un auteur plus nouveau que 
Saint Athanase: parce qu’il s’attache a réfuter exprés l’erreur de Nestorius et 
celle des Monothelites. 

5. Hamon L’Estrange, Alliance of Divine Offices, chap. v. p. 148. 

t Rivet, Critic. Sacr. lib. iii. c. v. Homilia (Athanasii) de adnuntiatione seu 
de sanctissima Deipara Virgine est supposititia. Et tamen oblectant se ejus 
allegatione Jesuitze, quia Marie inyocatio hie stabilitur, ete. 





172 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


Monothelite heresy appeared in the world, which was in the 
seventh century. So the antiquity of this festival cannot be 
deduced from them; neither could it be a festival in those 
times, by the ancient rules of the Church, which forbade the 
celebration of all festivals in Lent, except the Sabbath and 
the Lord’s-day, as appears from the Council of Laodicea®. 
But before the time of the Council of Trullo it was come into 
use; for that Council’, renewing the foresaid prohibition of 
Laodicea, makes a further exception in behalf of the Annun- 
ciation: forbidding all festivals to be kept in Lent, except the 
Sabbath, and the Lord’s-day, and the holy Annunciation ; 
which shows, that by this time it was become a noted festival : 
and, therefore, we may date its original from the seventh cen- 
tury, when we find sermons began to be made upon it. 


Secr. V.—Of the Festival called Hypapante, afterward 
Purification and Candlemas-day. 


Another festival, of later date, was that which is commonly 
called the Purification of the Virgin Mary, or Candlemas-day. 
This at first, among the Greeks, went by the name of ‘ Hypa- 
pante,’ ὙὝπαπαντὴ, which denotes the meeting of the Lord by 
Symeon in the temple, in commemoration of which occurrence 
it was first made a festival in the Church; some say in the 
time of Justin the emperor; others in the time of his suc- 
cessor, Justinian (an. 542). There is indeed a homily among 
St. Chrysostom’s works”, which, if it were genuine, would 
carry this feast a hundred years higher: for it is upon this 
festival, under this very name of ‘ Hypapante.’ But all learned 
men are agreed that it is none of his; and, particularly, Leo 


ἃ Cone. Laodie. 6. li. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1505.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἐν τεσσαρακοστῇ 
μαρτύρων γενέθλιον ἐπιτελεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων μνείαν ποιεῖν ἐν 
τοῖς σάββατοις καὶ κυριακαῖς. 

VY Cone. 'Trull. 6. lii. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1165.) "Ev πάσαις τῆς ἁγίας τεσσα- 
ρακοστῆς τῶν νηστειῶν ἡμέραις, παρεκτὸς σαββάτου Kai κυριακῆς, Kal THE 
ἁγίας τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ ἡμέρας, γινέσθω ἡ τῶν προηγιασμένων ἱερὰ λει- 
τουργία. 

w Chrysostom, Hom. xxii. tom. vi. (p. 207, edit. Francof.) Εἰς τὴν ὑπαπαν- 
THY τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ εἰς τὴν θεοτόκον Kai εἰς τὸν 
Συμεῶνα λόγος. 


Cuap. VIII. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 179 


Allatius* cites a passage out of Georgius Hamartolus’s ‘ Chro- 
nicon,’ which shows that there was no such festival in Chrysos- 
tom’s time, but that it was first instituted in the reign of 
Justinian. ‘At this time began the ‘ Hypapante’ to be cele- 
brated,” says he, “which before was not numbered among the 
festivals of our Lord. For Chrysostom says, ‘ The festivals of 
Christ’s economy here upon earth were proportioned to the 
number of the days of the creation of the world.’ The first 
is, his Nativity in the flesh; the second, Epiphany ; the third, 
the day of his Passion; the fourth, the day of his glorious 
Resurrection; the fifth, his Assumption into heaven; the 
sixth, the Descent of the Holy Ghost; the seventh, the great 
day of the general Resurrection, which has no succession nor 
end. For that is an eternal festival (or perpetual Sabbath 
and rest for the people of God), to be celebrated with much 
joy and gladness by those that shall be heirs of such things, 
‘As eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered 
into the heart of man, to conceive the things that God hath 
prepared for them that love him.’” Thus far Georgius Hamar- 
tolus out of Chrysostom : and all the historians that come after 
him agree in the same thing, that this was no festival in the 
Church till the time of Justin, or Justinian. Cedrenus’ fixes 


x Hamartol. Chron. in Vita Justin. ap. Allat. de Hebdom. Greecorum, sect. i. 
(Col. Agripp. 1648. p. 1403.) Kai ἡ ὑπαπαντὴ ἔλαβεν ἀρχὴν ἑορτάζεσθαι, 
ἥτις οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναρίθμιος ταῖς δεσποτικαῖς ἑορταῖς. ὁ γάρ τοι θεῖος Χρυσύσ- 
τομος οὕτως λέγει: Ἔν ἕξ ἡμέραις ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πάντα, 
καθὼς γέγραπται, Τῇ δὲ ἑβδόμῃ κατέπαυσε: διὸ καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν 
ἡμερῶν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος ζητήσας καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλὸς εὐδοκήσας καὶ 
ἐνανθρωπήσας τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν τῆς κοσμο- 
ποιΐας τὰς ἑορτὰς παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν τῆς αὐτοῦ οἰκονομίας" πρώτη μέν ἐστι 
καὶ ῥίζα τῶν ἑορτῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου 
Μαρίας μετὰ τὴν σύλληψιν γέννησις" δευτέρα ἡ ἐπιφάνειος" τρίτη ἡ τοῦ 
σωτηρίου πάθους ἡμέρα: τετάρτη ἡ ὑπερένδοξος ἀνάστασις, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ἐν 
τοῖς καταχθονίοις γενόμενος ὁ λυτρωτὴς συνανέστησε τοὺς δικαίους, καὶ 
τοὺς πιστεύσαντας" πέμπτη δὲ ἡ πρὸς οὐρανοὺς αὐτοῦ ἀνάληψις, ὡς καὶ ἐν 
πέμπτῃ διεπράχθη τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἡμέρᾳ" ἕκτη δὲ ἡ τῆς ἐπιφοιτήσεως ἡμέρα 
τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος" ἑβδόμη ἡ προσδοκωμένη τῆς καθολικῆς ἀναστάσεως 
τῶν νεκρῶν μεγάλη καὶ ἀδιάδοχος ἡμέρα: τότε γὰρ ἑορτάσουσιν ὄντως μετὰ 
πολλῆς χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης οἱ μέλλοντες κληρονομεῖν, ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ 
εἶδε, καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσε, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη, ἃ ἡτοίμασεν 
ὁ Θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. 

Y Cedren. Compend. (p. 366, A 9. Paris. 1047.) ’Exi αὐτοῦ [᾿Ιουστίνου] 


174 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XX. 


its original to the last year of Justin; but Landulphus Sagax’, 
Siffridus Presbyter*, Martin Polonus”, Nicephorus®, Sigebert 4, 
and Paulus Diaconus®*, cited by Xylander’ and Suicerus®, 
deduce it only from the reign of Justinian. And Baronius 
himself? does not deny it, only he would have it first insti- 
tuted in honour of the Virgin Mary, which the very name of 
‘Hypapante’ confutes, which signifies the coming of Symeon 
to meet the Lord in his temple, according to the revelation 
made to him, that he should not see death till he had seen the 


ἐτυπώθη ἑορτάζειν ἡμᾶς Kai THY ἑορτὴν τῆς ὑπαπαντῆς, τῆς μέχρι τότε μὴ 
ἑορταζομένης. 

2. Landulph. Vit. Justin. Anno xy. Justiniani imperii mense Octobri facta est 
mortalitas Byzantii. Et eodem anno Hypapante Domini sumsit initium, ut 
celebraretur apud Byzantium secunda die Februarii mensis. 

@ Siffrid. Epitom. Histor. lib. i. Sub Pelagio papa et Justiniano imperatore 
sumsit initium apud Constantinopolim, ut ὑπαπαντὴ Domini, id est, purificatio 
beatze Marize Virginis, sollemniter celebraretur. 

Ὁ Polon. Chronic. See following note (f). 

¢ Niceph. lib. xvii. ὁ. xxviii. Τάττει δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ὑπαπαντὴν 
ἄρτι πρῶτος, ἁπανταχοῦ τῆς γῆς ἑορτάζεσθαι. 

4 Sigebert. an. 542. Constantinopoli mortalitate magna insurgente, statuta 
est sollemnitas purificationis beatee Marie, quae Greece ὑπαπαντὴ, id est, 
obviatio, dicitur, eo quod die illo Simeon obviaverit oblato in templum Domino, 
et ita mortalitas illa cessavit. 

€ Paul. Diae. lib. xvi. Eodem anno Hypapante Domini sumpsit initium. Max. 
Bibl. V. P. (vol. xiii. p. 275, E 13.) See following note. 

f Xylander. Not. in Cedren. p. 688. (p. 15. n. 147, edit. Paris. 1647.) Hypa- 
pantze] quod nimirum quasi in oceursum prodiretur Christo in templo dedi- 
cando. Est enim sollemnitas, quam usitate Purificationis dicimus, quod primum 
ex Martini Poloni Chronicis didici, qui tamen pestis causa institutam dicit sub 
Justiniano Magno: quod idem est apud Nicephorum, lib. xvii. 6. xviii. et con- 
sentit, quod Sigebertus perhibuit, id fuisse anno a Christi natalibus 542, quo 
sane tempore Justinus decesserat, vel ipso Cedreno teste. Meminit Paulus 
Diacouus, lib. xvi. Rer. Romanarwn. 

8. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 1374. 

h Baron. an. 544. (Luez, vol. ix. p. 645.) Quod vero non amplius quam 
tribus mensibus civitatem Constantinopolitanam oecuparit (pestis), miraculo 
tribuitur. Quod licet neque a Procopio vel Evagrio recenseatur, haud tamen 
oblivione sepultum penitus relictum est: nam tantum beneficium solemni die 
festo in honorem Dei genitricis Mari instituto, anniversariaque die in ecclesia 
repetendo, remansit posteris perpetua memoria consignatum, quum videlicet 
idem Hypapante est nominatum, nempe humilis occursus Symeonis, quum 
Deipara suum Filium Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum in templum intulit ; 
cujus festi diei in occidente Gelasium papam fundamenta jecisse, quum Luper- 
ealia penitus abstulit, in notis ad Romanum Martyrologium diximus, 


Cuap. VIII. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 175 


Lord’s Christ. And the Greeks always reckoned it among 
those festivals which they called ‘festa Dominica,’ ‘ festivals 
appointed in honour of our Lord, as Leo Allatius himself 
informs us. 


Sect. VI.—The Original of Festivals in honour of Confessors 
and other Holy Men. 


He that would see more of the increase and progress of 
festivals, may consult Hospinian?, who has noted the original 
of every distinct festival successively as they were instituted in 
the following ages of the Church. I only note that he allows 
confessors and other holy men to have had their memorials 
something earlier than Cardinal Bona himself will allow. For 
Bona thinks this honour was only paid to martyrs properly so 
called, and not to confessors or any other saints, for the four 
first ages: and he says*, ‘That in Fronto’s Calendar, written 
about nine hundred years ago, there are not above four saints, 
that were not martyrs, named throughout the whole year, viz. 
Pope Sylvester, Pope Leo, Martin of Tours, and Gregory the 
Great.” But Hospinian’s observation is more exact : for Sozo- 
men says expressly', “ That it was customary in Palestine, 


i Hospinian. de Festis, 6. iv. 

k Bon. Rer. Liturgic. lib. i. 6. xv. sect. ii. (Antverp. 1677. p. 389.) Citati 
patres (Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Augustinus) de solis martyribus loquuntur, 
quia Confessorum festivitates serius in ecclesia receptee sunt; et in Frontonis 
Calendario, ante nongentos annos scripto, non nisi quatuor adseripti sunt, Mar- 
tinus scilicet Turonensis, Gregorius M., Leo papa, et Sylvester. 

1 Sozom. lib. iii. 6. xiv. (Reading, 1720. p. 114, 2.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. 
Ρ. 423, A.) Διέπρεπε δὲ τότε ἐνθάδε Ἱλαρίων ὁ θεσπέσιος. . . . (C 2.) ἐπὶ 
τοσοῦτον δὲ θεοφιλὴς ἐγένετο, ὡς ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτοῦ τάφῳ πολλοὺς 
ἰᾶσθαι κάμνοντας" καὶ δαιμονῶντας. καὶ τόγε παραδοξότατον, παρά τὲ 
Κυπρίοις, οὗ πρότερον ἐτάφη, καὶ παρὰ Παλαιστινοῖς, παρ᾽ οἷς ἐστι νῦν. 
συμβὰν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐν Κύπρῳ διατρίβοντα τελευτῆσαι, πρὸς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων 
ἐκηδεύθη, καὶ ἐν πολλῇ τιμῇ καὶ θεραπείᾳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἡ ν᾽ μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα 
Ἡσύχας, ὃς εὐδοκιμώτατος ἐγένετο τῶν αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν, κλέψας τὸ λείψανον, 
διεκόμισεν εἰς Παλαιστίνην, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ μοναστηρίῳ ἔθαψε" καὶ τὸ ἐξ 
ἐκείνου, δημοτελῆ καὶ μάλα λαμπρὰν ἐνθάδε ἐτήσιον vay: ἄγουσιν οἱ 
ἐπιχώριοι: ὧδε γὰρ Παλαιστινοῖς ἔθος γεραίρειν τοὺς map αὐτοῖς ἄνδρας 
ἀγαθοὺς γενομένους, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ Αὐρήλιον τὸν ᾿Ανθηδόνιον, καὶ 
᾿Αλεξίωνα τὸν ἀπὸ Βηθαγάθωνος, καὶ ᾿Αλαφίωνα τὸν ἀπὸ ᾿Ασαλέας. οἱ κατὰ 
τὸν αὐτὸν γενόμενοι χρόνον, ἐπὶ τῆς παρούσης βασιλείας εὐσεβῶς καὶ 


176 THE ANTIQUITIES, &c. Cuap. VIII. 8 6. 
long before, to celebrate the anniversary-days of such men as 
had been eminent among them for piety and virtue, such as 
Hilarion of Gaza, Aurelius of Anthedon, Alexion of Bethaga- 
thon, and Alaphion of Asalea, who were no martyrs, but only 
men of renown for their piety, by whose virtues the Christian 
religion had made a considerable progress in many heathen 
cities, in the reign of Constantius; for which reason their 
memory was celebrated, in those places, with the anniversary 
festivals.” And so Baronius™ observes out of St. Jerome ®, 
that Hilarion himself kept a vigil preceding the day of Anto- 
nius’s death, in commemoration of him. Therefore, whatever 
might be the custom of the Western Church, it is plain, in 
the Eastern parts, the anniversary commemoration of confes- 
sors and other eminent saints was introduced a little sooner. 


ἀνδρείως ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐπολιτεύσαντο, καὶ ταῖς οἰκείαις ἀρεταῖς ἐν “Ἑλληνι- 
ζούσαις ἄγαν ταῖς τῇδε πόλεσι καὶ κώμαις, εἰς ἐπίδοσιν ἤγαγον τὴν θρη- 
σκείαν. 

m Baron. an. 358. n, xxiii. (Antverp. 1598. vol. iii. p. 728.) (Luez, vol. iv. 
Ρ- 626.) De sancto Hilarione scribit Hieronymus, quod cognito, licet Jonge 
absens, Antonii obitu, illue magno labore se contulit, ea nimirum ex causa, ut 
anniversariam illius dormitionis diem eodem, in quo defunctus erat, loco, preeviis 
nocturnis vigiliis celebraret. 

n Hieron. Vit. Hilar. ec. xxxi. (Venet. Vallars. vol. ii. p. 31, A.) Confessus 
est fratribus, instare diem dormitionis beati Antonii; et pervigilem noctem in 
ipso quo defunctus fuerat loco, a se ei debere celebrari. 


BOOK XXII. 


OF THE FASTS IN USE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 





CHAPTER I. 


OF THE QUADRAGESIMAL, OR LENT-FAST. 


Secr. I.— What this Fast was originally, Forty Days or 
Forty Hours. 


Next to the festivals observed in the ancient Church, we are 
to take a view of their solemn and stated times of fasting. 
These, like the festivals, were some of them weekly ; and some 
annual ; that is, such as returned at a certain season, only once 
a-year. Among those that came only once a-year, the Qua- 
dragesimal, or Lent-fast, was the most famous. The Greeks 
called it Τεσσαρακοστὴ, and the Latins ‘ Quadragesima ;’ both 
which words denote the number ‘forty ;? whence this fast, for 
some reason, was called Quadragesimal; but whether for its 
being a fast of forty days, or only forty hours, is variously 
disputed among learned men. They of the Romish Church 
generally maintain, that it was always a fast of forty days ; and 
that, as such, it was of apostolical institution. And there are 
some of the Protestant communion who are of the same 
opinion. Others think it was only of ecclesiastical institution : 
and therefore as it was variable and alterable by the Church’s 
power, so it was variously observed in different Churches ; and 
erew, by degrees, from a fast of forty hours to a fast of forty 
days, still retaining the name of the ‘Quadragesimal Fast,’ 
under all its variations. This is what Bishop Morton*, and 


a Morton, Catholic Appeal, book ii. chap. xxiy. p. 304. 
VOL. VII. N 


178 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


Bishop Taylor’, and Peter du Moulin’, and Daillé¢, and 
Chamier®, have largely disputed against the Romanists. And 
even among the Papists, some writers of no mean rank, such 
as Melchior Canus‘ and Cajetan® say, it was only such an 
apostolical rule or custom, as left the Church at liberty to 
alter it, as she did some other things, upon just and proper 
occasions ; and to abrogate it by introducing a contrary prac- 
tice. But this is a question I shall not here debate, but only 
inquire into matter of fact, by whom this fast was first insti- 
tuted, and of what duration and length it was, when it first 
began to be observed in the Church. Dr. Cave, in his Primi- 
tive Christianity, says, this fast was very ancient, but far 
from being an apostolical canon. And he cites Mr. Thorn- 
dike, together with Bishop Taylor, for the same opinion. 

Ὁ Taylor, Ductor Dubitant. book iii. chap. iv. The Lent-fast is not a tradi- 
tion or canon apostolical. (Heber, 1839. vol. xiv. p. 31.) 

© Moulin, Novelty of Popery, book vii. contr. v. chap. vil. p. 516. 

4 Dall. de Jejun. et Quadrages. lib. iii. ον ix. 

€ Chamier. Panstrat. tom. iii. lib. xix. 6. vii. (Genev. 1642. p. 1074.) 

f Can. Loc. Theol. lib. iii. 6. v. p. 194. Alteras traditiones apostoli ipsi, 
Spiritu Sancto suggerente, ad ecclesize utilitatem ediderunt. Quas tamen eis 


P. 195. In aliis, quee vide- 
licet apostoli constituerunt tamquam ecclesize pastores, poterit quidem summus 


Christus, dum in terra degeret, nusquam edidit. 





pontifex, ut in ceteris ecclesize legibus, dispensare, sie enim schola loquitur, 
poteritque item contrarius populi mos instituta hujus generis abrogare: ut 
trina immersio, quam ex apostolica traditione in baptismi sacramento ecclesiam 
habuisse, Canon Apostolorum xlix. ostendit, per contrariam consuetudinem 
abolita est. Ejusdem quoque ordinis est Quadragesimeze jejunium, ete. 

§ Cajetan was censured by Catharinus for this. Vid. Illyrieum de Sectis 
Papisticis, p. 143. 

h Cave’s Primitive Christianity, part i. chap. vii. Lond. 1682. p. 181. Their 
annual fast was that of Lent, by way of preparation to the feast of our Saviour’s 
Resurrection ; this (though not in the modern use of it) was very ancient, 
though far from being an apostolical canon, as a learned prelate (Bp. Taylor, 
Duet. Dub. book iii. chap. vi.) of our Church has fully proved. From the very 
first age of the Christian Church, it was customary to fast before Easter; but 
for how long it was variously observed, according to different times and places ; 
some fasting so many days, others so many weeks, and some so many days on 
each week ; and it is most probably thought (Thorndike, Religious Assemblies, 
chap. viii), that it was at first styled τεσσαρακοστὴ, or ‘Quadragesima,’ not 
because it was a fast of forty days, but of forty hours, begun about twelve on 
Friday (the time of our Saviour’s falling under the power of death), and con- 
tinued till Sunday morning, the time of his rising from the dead. Afterwards 
it was enlarged to a longer time, drawn out into more days, and then weeks, 
till it came to three, and at last to six or seven weeks. 


Cuar. I. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 179 


Secr. I1.—Some Probability that at first it was only a Fast 
of Forty Hours, or the two Days from the Passion to the 
Resurrection. 


Now the reasons persuading learned men to believe that it 
was not instituted by the apostles, at least not as any necessary 
rule, obliging all men to fast forty days, are these that 
follow :— 


1. Because there is some probability that at first it was 
only a fast of forty hours, or the time that our Saviour lay in 
the grave, that is, the Friday and Saturday before Easter, the 
time that Christ the Bridegroom was taken from his disciples, 
between his Passion and his Resurrection. Tertullian, when 
he was a Montanist, disputing against the Catholics, says’, 
“They thought themselves obliged only to observe those two 
days in which the Bridegroom was taken away from them.” 
This he elsewhere calls the ‘ Paschal fasti,’ which all observed 
in common as a public fast, with great religion. And again‘, 
objecting to the Catholics their observation of other fasts be- 
sides the two days in which Christ was taken away from them, 
such as the half-fasts of their stationary days, and their other 
fasts upon bread and water; he makes them answer, that 
those other fasts were kept at every man’s liberty and will, 
and not by any express command. So that they thought them- 
selves obliged only to observe those two days on which the 
Bridegroom was taken away from them. This Irenzeus calls 
‘the fast of forty hours before Easter, if we retain the vulgar 
and common reading. For writing to Pope Victor about the 
difference between the Eastern and Western Churches, con- 


i Tertul. de Jejun. ec. ii. (Paris. 1664. p. 554, C.) Certe in Evangelio illos dies 
jejuniis determinatos putant, in quibus ablatus est sponsus; et hos esse jam 
solos legitimos jejuniorum Christianorum. 

j Ibid. de Orat. c. xiv. (ibid. p. 135, A 8.) Sic et die Paschze, quo communis 
et quasi publica jejunii religio est, merito deponimus osculum. 

k [bid. de Jejun. ec. xiii. (ibid. p. 551, B 8.) Convenio vos et preeter Pascha 
jejunantes, citra illos dies, quibus ablatus est sponsus, et stationum semijejunia 
interponentes, et vero interdum pane et aqua victitantes, ut cuique visum est : 
denique respondetis, heee ex arbitrio agenda, non ex imperio. 


wn 2 


180 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book ΧΧΙ. 


cerning the time of Easter, he tells him’, “‘ There had been 
differences, not only about the time of Easter, but about the 
manner of fasting. For some thought they ought to fast one 
day; others two; others more; and others measured their 
day” (or their fast, as Valesius™ observes it ought to be read), 
“by the computation of forty hours, joining day and night 
together. And this variety among those that observe the 
fast, did not begin in our age, but long before us, among our 
ancestors ; many of whom probably not being very curious and 
exact in their observation, handed down to posterity the cus- 
tom as it had been, through simplicity or private fancy, intro- 
duced among them. And yet, nevertheless, all these lived 
peaceably one with another, and we also keep peace together. 
For the difference in observing the fast does only so much the 
more commend the common unity of faith in which all are 
agreed.” I must not here conceal from the reader, that there 
are several learned men, who think one clause in this passage 
ought to be read a little otherwise: they say Ruffin’s old 
translation, and Sir H. Savil’s copy, read it thus: ‘Some 
fast one day ; some two ; some more ; some forty days.” Hence 
they also argue, that a Lent of forty days was observed in the 


1 Tren. ap. Euseb. lib. v. ¢. xxiv. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 156, C 8.) 
(Reading, 1720. p. 246, 1.) Οὐδὲ yap μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστὶν ἡ ἀμφισ- 
βήτησις, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας. οἱ μὲν γὰρ οἴονται 
μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν' οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ πλείονας" οἱ δὲ τεσσα- 
ράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. 
καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποικιλία τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων: οὐ νῦν ἐφ᾽’ ἡμῶν γεγονυῖα, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ πολὺ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν" τῶν παρὰ τὸ ἀκριβὲς ὡς εἰκὸς 
κρατούντων, τὴν καθ’ ἁπλότητα καὶ ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήθειαν εἰς τὸ μετέπειτα 
πεποιηκότων. καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε, καὶ εἰρηνεύο- 
μεν πρὸς ἀλλήλους" καὶ ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως 
συνίστησιν. 

m Vales. in loc. Συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν] Miror tot homines erudi- 
tos, qui hune Irenzei locum in suis libris exposuerunt, ejus vitium non animad- 
vertisse. Quis enim est sensus horum verborum? aut quis umquam credat 
fuisse homines, qui quadraginta horarum spatio diem metirentur ἢ Atqui qua- 
draginta hore biduum jejunantibus efficiunt. quidem non dubito, quin Ire- 
neous ita scripserit, Οἱ δὲ τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς 
συμμετροῦσι τὴν νηστείαν. Qua scriptura nihil planius esse potest. Quare 
aut Irenzeus omnino ita seripsit, aut certe ita scribere debuit. Sed antiquarii, 
yocabulo ex superiore linea hue translato, locum corruperunt, 


Cuap. 1. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 181 


time of Ireneus. So Bishop Beveridge", Bishop Patrick», 
Bishop Hooper?, and others, who have written peculiar dis- 
sertations on this subject. On the other hand, all the manu- 
scripts used by Stephens and Valesius, in their accurate edi- 
tions, are so pointed, as to make the word ‘ forty,’ refer not to 
days, but hours only. It is no easy matter to determine a 
point of such a critical nature between so many learned men : 
but if I may be allowed to conjecture in so obscure a case, I 
should incline to compromise the dispute, and, as it were, 
divide the matter between them ; by saying, first, that in the 
time of Irenzeus and Tertullian, the Catholics allowed the fast 
of forty hours between our Saviour’s death and resurrection— 
call it a fast of one or two days, as we please—to have the 
nature of an evangelical command, partly from the example 
and practice of the apostles, and partly from those words of 
our Saviour, ‘The days will come that the Bridegroom shall 
be taken from them, and then shall they fast :” which, as we 
have seen, they understood of the time of about forty hours 
that our Saviour lay in the grave: from whence it is not im- 
probable, that the first notion and name of the most strict 
Quadragesimal fast might take its original. Which is enough 
to prove the perpetuity of a Quadragesimal fast before Easter, 
as of constant use in the Church. 2dly, That at the same 
time that Ireneeus and Tertullian wrote, there were other 
additional days of fasting superadded to these by several 
Churches, but with a great deal of variety in their number and 
observation, it being at every Church’s liberty to appoint what 
number of these additional days she thought fit: which though 
they were in some Churches more, and in some fewer, and 
none of them full forty days, till after the time of Gregory the 
Great, yet they all went by the name of the ‘ Quadragesimal 
fast,’ either because they came near the number of forty days, 
or because they were an appendix to the Paschal fast, which 
was most ancient, and originally called ‘ Quadragesimal.’ 


n Bevereg. Cod. Can. Vindie. lib. iii. ¢. vii. (Coteler. vol. ii. p. 159—163. 
Antverp. 1698.) 

ο Patrick, Of Fasting in Lent. (Lond. 1686. part iii. chap. xvi. p. 147.) 

» Hooper’s Discourse of Lent, part i. chap. iii. (Lond. 1757. p. 161.) 


182 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


When first these additional days? came in, is not very easy to 
determine: but that they were taken up by some Churches in 
the time of Ireneus and Tertullian, is beyond dispute, from 
what has been alleged out of each of them: for they both 
speak of more days than two, as observed in many Churches ; 
only with this difference, that the one were observed as more 
necessary, being founded upon the words of Christ himself; 
and the other were at the Churches’ free liberty and choice, as 
being purely of ecclesiastical institution ; and therefore varying 
in their number in different Churches, according to the wis- 
dom and discretion of those that appointed them. And this 
opens the way to a second argument or reason, inducing many 
learned men to believe, that the Lent-fast, as comprising the 
precise number of forty days, was neither of apostolical insti- 
tution nor practice. 


Secr. I1].—Great Variety, in Point of Time, observable in the 
Celebration of this Fast, in many Churches. 


Because, if there had been any such apostolical order, or 
example, it is scarce accountable how such great variety, in 
point of time, should immediately happen in the observation of 
this fast, as we are sure, in fact, did happen in many Churches ; 
some keeping it only three weeks, some six, some seven, and 
yet none of them hitting upon the precise number of forty days 
of fasting. Socrates gives this account of it in describing the 
difference of rites and ceremonies in divers Churches. ‘“‘ One 
may observe,” says het, “how the ante-Paschal fast is differ- 


4 Bishop Gunning (Lent-fast, p. 114,) thinks there is mention made of a ten 
days’ fast in Lucian’s Philopatris. 

© Socrat. lib. v. ὁ. xxii. (Vales. 1700. p. 234, 0.) (Reading, p. 294, 14.) Τὰς 
πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα νηστείας, ἄλλως παρ᾽ ἄλλοις φυλαττομένας ἐστὶν εὑρεῖν. οἱ 
μὲν γὰρ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, τρεῖς πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα ἑβδομάδας, πλὴν σαββάτου καὶ 
κυριακῆς, συνημμένας νηστεύουσιν" οἱ δὲ ἐν Ἰλλυριοῖς καὶ ὕλῃ τῇ “Ἑλλάδι, 
καὶ οἱ ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ, πρὸ ἑβδομάδων ἕξ, τὴν πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα νηστείαν 
νηστεύουσι, τεσσαρακοστὴν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζοντες" ἄλλοι δὲ παρὰ τούτους, 
ἄλλοι πρὸ ἑπτὰ τῆς ἑορτῆς ἑβδομάδων τῆς νηστείας ἀρχόμενοι, καὶ τρεῖς 
μόνας πενθημέρους ἐκ διαλημμάτων νηστεύοντες, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ αὐτοὶ 
τεσσαρακοστὴν τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον καλοῦσι' καὶ θαυμάσαι μοι ἔπεισι, πῶς 
οὗτοι περὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν διαφωνοῦντες, τεσσαρακοστὴν αὐτὴν 
ὀνομάζουσι: καὶ ἄλλος ἄλλον λόγον τῆς ὀνομασίας εὑρεσιλογοῦντες ἀποδι- 
δόασιν" ἔστι δὲ εὑρεῖν οὐ μόνον περὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν διαφωνοῦντας; 


Cuap. I. $3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 183 


ently observed by men of different Churches. The Romans 
fast three weeks before Easter’, only the Sabbaths and Lord’s- 
days excepted. The Illyrians, and all Greece, and the Alex- 
andrians fast six weeks, and call that the ‘ Quadragesimal 
fast. Others (meaning the Constantinopolitans) begin their 
fast seven weeks before Easter, but only fast fifteen days by 
intervals; and yet they also call this the ‘ Quadragesimal 
fast.’ And it is wonderful, that when they differ so much 
about the number of days, that they should call it ‘ Quadra- 
gesimal,’ and assign different reasons for this appellation. But 
we may observe not only a difference in the number of days, 
but in the manner of their abstinence. For some abstain 
from all living creatures ; others, of all living ¢reatures, only 
eat fish; some eat fowls together with fish, because, accord- 
ing to Moses, they say they come of water. Others abstain 
from seeds (or berries) and eggs. Others eat, dry bread only ; 
and some not so much as that. There are some that fast till 
nine o’clock, that is, three in the afternoon, and then eat any 
kind of meat. Other nations observe other customs in their 
fasts, and that for various reasons. And since no one can 
show any written rule about this, it is plain the apostles left 
this matter free to every one’s liberty and choice: that no one 
should be compelled to do a good thing out of necessity or 
fear.” Sozomen gives the like account of these variations: 
“The Quadragesimal fast, before Easter,” says het, “‘some 


ἀλλὰ Kai THY ἀποχὴν τῶν ἐδεσμάτων οὐχ ὁμοίαν ποιουμένους" οἱ μὲν γὰρ, 
πάντῃ ἐμψύχων ἀπέχονται οἱ δὲ, τῶν ἐμψύχων ἰχθῦς μόνους μεταλαμβά- 
γουσι" τινὲς δὲ σὺν τοῖς ἰχθῦσι, καὶ τῶν πτηνῶν ἀπογεύονται, ἐξ ὕδατος 
καὶ αὐτὰ κατὰ τὸν Mwicéa γεγεννῆσθαι λέγοντες" οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀκροδρύων καὶ 
ὠῶν ἀπέχονται" τινὲς δὲ καὶ ξηροῦ ἄρτου μόνου μεταλαμβάνουσιν" ἄλλοι 
δὲ οὐδὲ τούτου" ἕτεροι δὲ ἄχρις ἐννάτης ὥρας νηστεύοντες, διάφορον ἔχουσι 
τὴν ἑστίαν: ἄλλως τε ἄλλοις φύλοις καὶ μυρίαι αἰτίαι οὖσαι τυγχάνουσι" 
καὶ ἐπειδὴ οὐδεὶς περὶ τούτου ἔγγραφον ἔχει δεῖξαι παράγγελμα, δῆλον ὡς 
καὶ περὶ τούτου τῇ ἑκάστου γνώμῃ καὶ προαιρέσει ἐπέτρεψαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, 
ἵνα ἕκαστος μὴ φόβῳ, μηδὲ ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὸ ἀγαθὸν κατεργάζοιτο. 

5. Some think this is only to be understood of the Novatians at Rome.——See 
Bishop Hooper, of Lent, p. 84. If in the days of Socrates, when the Catholics 
generally observed so large a Lent, the Roman Novatians observed but three 
weeks, &e. See also, p. 139. 

t Sozom. lib. vii. ¢. xix. (Reading, 1720. p. 308, 6.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. 
Ῥ. 596, C.) Kai τὴν πρὸ ταύτης [ἀναστασίμου ἑορτῆς] δὲ καλουμένην τεσ- 


184, THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


observe six weeks, as the Illyrians and Western Churches, 
and all Libya, Egypt, and Palestine; others make it seven 
weeks, as the Constantinopolitans and neighbouring nations as 
far as Phoenicia ; others fast three only of those six or seven 
weeks by intervals ; others the three weeks next immediately 
before Easter; and others fast only two weeks, as the Mon- 
tanists.” 


Sect. IV.—Lent consisted not of above Thirty-six Fasting- 
Days in any Church till the Time of Gregory the Great ; 
because all Sundays were universally excepted out of the 
fast, and all Saturdays, except one, in all the Eastern 
Churches. 


Cassian has something of the same observation: for he 
says, ‘““Some Churches kept their Lent six weeks, and some 
seven, and yet none of them made their fast above thirty-six 
days in the whole. For though six weeks be forty-two days, 
yet all Sundays were excepted out of the fast: and then, six 
days being subducted, there remained but thirty-six days of 
fasting.” In like manner those Churches which kept seven 
weeks, that is, forty-nine days, to their Lent, excepted not 
only the Lord’s-days, but all Saturdays, save one, out of the 
number of fasting-days; and, therefore, thirteen days upon 
that account being subducted, the remainder" was still but 
thirty-six: and this was the whole of Lent till the time of 
Gregory the Great, who speaks of forty-two days’ as the 
appointment of Lent: but, taking away the Sundays, the re- 
mainder is only thirty-six. Now that this was so, is evident 


σαρακοστὴν, ἐν ἡ νηστεύει τὸ πλῆθος, οἱ μὲν, εἰς ἕξ ἑβδομάδας ἡμερῶν 
λογίζονται, ὡς ᾿Ιλλυριοὶ καὶ οἱ πρὸς δύσιν, Λιβύη τε πᾶσα καὶ Αἴγυπτος 
σὺν τοῖς ἸΙαλαιστινοῖς" οἱ δὲ ἑπτὰ, ὡς ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, καὶ τοῖς 
πέριξ ἔθνεσι, μέχρι Φοινίκων" ἄλλοι δὲ, τρεῖς σποράδην ἐν ταῖς ἐξ ἣ ἑπτὰ 
νηστεύουσιν" οἱ δὲ, ἅμα τρεῖς πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς συνάπτουσιν" οἱ δὲ, δύο, ὡς 
οἱ τὰ Μοντανοῦ φρονοῦντες. 

ἃ Cassian. Collat. xxi. See following note (a). Basil. Homil. ii. de jejun. 
(Bened. 1839. vol. ii. p. 14.) Tlévre ἡμερῶν νηστεία. See Homil. xiv. in ebrio- 
sos, p. 17]. 

ἡ Gregor. Hom. xvi. in Evangelia. (Bened. Paris. 1705. vol. i. p. 1494, E.) 
Sex dies Dominici subtrahuntur, non plus in abstinentia quam triginta et sex 
dies remanent. 





Cuap. 1. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 185 


from what has been discoursed before of the Lord’s-day™ and 
the Sabbath, where I have fully showed, that the Lord’s-day 
was never allowed to be kept a fast, but always observed as a 
festival, even in Lent, in all Churches in the world; and in 
the Oriental Churches the Saturday, or Sabbath, was excepted 
out of the number of fast-days also. To what I have said be- 
fore, I shall only add here one passage of Chrysostom, where 
he gives the reason why this exception of these two days was 
made in the Lent-fast: “As there are stations,” says he*, 
‘‘and inns in the public roads, for weary travellers to refresh 
themselves, and rest from their labours, that they may more 
cheerfully go on again in their journey; and as in the sea 
there are shores and havens for seamen to betake themselves 
to, when they are in a storm, and refresh themselves from the 
violence of the winds, and then begin sailing again; so the 
Lord hath appointed these two days in the week, as stations, 
and inns, and shores, and havens, for those to rest in, who 
have taken upon them the course of fasting in this holy time 
of Lent, that they may refresh their bodies a little from the 
labour of fasting, and recreate their minds; and after these 
two days are past, to go on again with cheerfulness in the 
journey which they have begun.” From hence it is apparent, 
that in some of the Eastern Churches, where the whole time 
of Lent was but six weeks, or forty-two days, when the Satur- 
days and Sundays were deducted, the remainder of fasting- 


Ww Book xx. ch. ii. sect. v. p. 37. and chap. iii. sect. v. p. 58. 

x Chrysostom. Hom. xi. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 84, A 9.) Καθ- 
ἀπερ ἐν ταῖς λεωφύροις εἰσὶ σταθμοὶ καὶ καταγώγια, ὥστε τοὺς ὁδίτας κεκμη- 
κότας διαναπαύεσθαι, καὶ τῶν πόνων λήγοντας, οὕτω πάλιν ἅπτεσθαι τῆς 
ὁδοιπορίας, καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ δὲ ἀκταὶ καὶ αἰγιαλοὶ καὶ λιμένες εἰσὶν ὥστε 
κἀκεῖ τοὺς ναυτιλλομένους μετὰ τὰ πολλὰ κύματα διαδραμεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τὰς 
τῶν ἀνέμων ἐμβολὰς ἀντιστῆναι, μικρὸν ἀνεθέντας, οὕτω πάλιν τῆς ναυ- 
τιλίας ἅπτεσθαι: τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας τεσσαρακοσ- 
τῆς, τοῖς τὸν δρόμον τῆς νηστείας καταδεξαμένοις, καθάπερ σταθμοὺς καὶ 
καταγώγια, καὶ ἀκτὰς, καὶ αἰγιαλοὺς, καὶ λιμένας, τὰς δύο ταύτας ἡμέρας 
τῆς ἑβδομάδος βραχύ τι διαναπαύεσθαι κεχάρισται ὁ Δεσπότης, ἵνα καὶ τὸ 
σῶμα μικρὸν ἀνέντες ἀπὸ τῶν πόνων τῆς νηστείας, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν παρα- 
μυθησάμενοι, πάλιν παρελθουσῶν τῶν δύο τούτων ἡμερῶν, τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ 
μετὰ προθυμίας ἅπτωνται οἱ τὴν καλὴν ταύτην καὶ ἐπωφελῆ ὁδοιπορίαν 
ποιούμενοι. 


186 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


days were not above one-and-thirty; and where they were 
most, not above thirty-six. (See Bishop Gunning, Lent-fast, 
p- 156.) 


Sect. V.—Who first added Ash-Wednesday, and the other 
three Days, in the Roman Church, to the Beginning of Lent. 


Who first added Ash- Wednesday, and the other three days, 
to the beginning of Lent, in the Roman Church, to make them 
completely forty, is not agreed among their own writers. 
Some say it was the work of Gregory the Great, but others 
ascribe it to Gregory II., who lived above a hundred years 
after, in the beginning of the eighth century. But, as Azorius 
says’, “It is not very material whether of the two was the 
author of the addition, since it is confessed to be an addition 
to Lent, after it had continued six hundred years without it.” 
And this is a plain demonstration, that Lent, in this notion at 
least, as taken for the precise number of a forty days’ fast, 
could not be of apostolical institution, whatever it might be in 
any other form or duration. 


Sect. VI.— Whether the Ancients reputed Lent to be an Aposto- 
lical Institution. 


But many of the ancients do not allow it in any form to be 
an apostolical institution, but only a useful order and appoint- 
ment of the Church. So Cassian says expressly”, ‘‘ That as 
long as the perfection of the Primitive Church remained invio- 
lable, there was no observation of Lent ; but when men began 


Y Azor. Institut. Moral. lib. vii. 6. xii. part. i. 

7 Cassian. Collat. xxi. 6. xxx. (Lips. 1733. p. 573.) Sciendum sane hane 
observantiam Quadragesimze, quamdiu ecclesize illius primitivee perfectio invio- 
lata permansit, penitus non fuisse. Non enim preecepti hujus necessitate, nee 
quasi legali sanctione constricti, arctissimis jejuniorum terminis claudebantur, 
qui [per] totum anni spatium eequali jejunio concludebantwr. Verum quum ab 
illa apostolica devotione desc-end(isc)ens quotidie eredentium multitudo suis 
opibus incubaret, nee eas usui cunectorum [fidelium] secundum apostolorum 
instituta divideret, sed privatim suis impendiis consulens, non servare tantum, 
sed etiam augere contenderet, id tune universis sacerdotibus placuit, ut homines 
euris seecularibus illigatos et pene continentiv vel compunctionis ignaros, ad 
opus sanctum canonica jejuniorum indictione revocarent, et velut legalium 
decimarum necessitate compellerent. 


Cuap. I. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 187 


to decline from the apostolical fervour of devotion, and give 
themselves overmuch to worldly affairs, then the priests, in 
general, agreed to recall them from secular cares by a canonical 
indiction of fasting, and setting aside a tenth of their time for 
God: for so he reckons, that the thirty-six days, which was 
then the fixed term of Lent, were by computation? the tenth 
of the whole year. Cassian was a disciple of St. Chrysostom’s, 
and he seems to have had his notion and sentiments about the 
original of Lent from him: for Chrysostom gives much the 
same account of it, ‘‘ Why do we fast these forty days? Many, 
heretofore, were used to come to the communion indevoutly 
and inconsiderately, especially at this time, when Christ first 
gave it to his disciples: therefore our forefathers’, considering 
the mischief arising from such careless approaches, meeting 
together, appointed forty days for fasting and prayer, and 
hearing of sermons, and holy assemblies, that all men in these 
days being carefully purified by prayer, and alms-deeds, and 
fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession of sins, and 
other the like exercises, might come, according to their capa- 


a Thid. ¢. xxv. (ibid. p. 569.) Lege Mosaica universo populo generalis est pro- 
mulgata preeceptio, ‘Decimas tuas et primitias offeres Domino Deo tuo.’ 
Itaque qui substantiarum omniumque fructuum decimas offerre preecipimur, 
multo magis necesse est, ut ipsius quoque conversationis nostrze, et humani usus 
operumque nostrorum decimas offeramus, quze profecto in supputatione Qua- 
dragesimee evidenter implentur. Omnium enim dierum numerus, quibus revo- 
lutus in orbem annus includitur, triginta sex semis dierum numero decimatur. 
In septem vero hebdomadibus, si dies Dominici et sabbata subtrahantur, 
quinque et triginta supersunt dies jejuniis deputati ; sed adjecta illa vigiliarum 
die, qua usque in gallorum cantum illucente Dominica jejunium sabbati prote- 
latur, non solum sex et triginta dierum numerus adimpletur, verum etiam pro 
decimis quinque dierum qui residui videbantur, si illud quod superest, adjectum 
nobis spatium computetur, plenitudini totius summze omnino nihil deerit. 

Ὁ Chrysostom. Hom. lii. in eos, qui primo Pascha jejunant. (Bened. 1718. 
vol. i. p. 611, C5.) Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν νηστεύομεν τὰς τεσσαράκοντα ταύτας 
ἡμέρας ; πολλοὶ τὸ παλαιὸν τοῖς μυστηρίοις προσήεσαν ἁπλῶς καὶ ὡς 
ἔτυχε, καὶ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον, καθ᾽ ὃν ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτὰ παρέ- 
δωκε, συνειδότες οὖν οἱ πατέρες τὴν βλάβην τὴν γινομένην ἐκ τῆς ἠμελη- 
μένης προσόδου, συνελθόντες ἐτύπωσαν ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα νηστείας, 
εὐχῶν, ἀκροάσεως, συνόδων, ἵν᾿ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις καθαρθέντες μετ᾽ 
ἀκριβείας ἅπαντες καὶ Ov εὐχῶν, καὶ δι’ ἐλεημοσύνης, καὶ διὰ νηστείας, καὶ 
διὰ παννυχίδων, καὶ διὰ δακρύων, καὶ δι’ ἐξομολογήσεως, καὶ διὰ τῶν 
ἄλλων ἁπάντων, οὕτω κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἡμετέραν μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος 


προσίωμεν. 


188 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


city, with a pure conscience to the holy table.” St. Austin 
sometimes delivers himself after the same manner, though at 
other times he seems to derive the original of Lent from the 
authority of the Gospel. In one place he says‘, ‘ Though 
fasting in general be prescribed in the New Testament, yet 
what days men ought to fast, or what not, he finds not defined 
by any precept of Christ, or his apostles.” In another place, 
specifying more particularly the several solemnities observed 
by Christians, he says‘, “‘'There was some foundation and 
authority for them in Scripture: for we know out of the Gos- 
pel what day our Lord suffered and was buried, and rose 
again from the dead; and therefore the observation of these 
days was added by the councils of the fathers, and the whole 
world was persuaded to celebrate the Pasch after that manner. 
The forty days’ fast has authority, both in the Old Testament, 
from the fast of Moses and Elias, and also from the Gospel, 
because our Lord fasted so many days.” He adds, a little 
after®, “That the supputation of Easter, and fifty days of 
Pentecost, are firmly collected out of Scripture: for, as the 
custom of the Church has confirmed the observation of 
those forty days before Easter, so has it also confirmed the 
distinction that is made between the eight days of neo- 
phytes” (or the time of the newly baptized wearing their white 
garments) “from the rest, that the eighth day might accord 
with the first.” Here are two things very observable in St. 
Austin’s words :—1. That the authority and foundation which 


¢ Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. (Bened. Antverp. 1700. vol. ii. p. 59, D 2.) 
Ego in Evangelicis et Apostolicis litteris totoque instrumento, quod appellatur 
Testamentum Novum, video preeceptum esse jejunium. Quibus autem diebus 
non oporteat jejunare, et quibus oporteat, preecepto Domini vel apostolorum non 
invenio definitum. 

d Aug. Epist. exix. ad Januar. ce. xv. (Bened. Antverp. 1700. vol. ii. p. 104, 
at bottom.) Ex evangelio, quia jam manifestum est, quo etiam die Dominus 
crucifixus sit, et in sepultura fuerit, et resurrexerit, adjuncta est etiam ipsorum 
dierum observatio per patrum concilia, et orbi universo Christiano persuasum 
est, eo modo Pascha celebrari oportere. 28. Quadragesima sane jejuniorum 
habet auctoritatem, et in veteribus libris ex jejunio Moysi et Eliz; et ex 
evangelio, quia totidem diebus Dominus jejunavit. 

e Thid. ¢. xvii. (ibid. vol. ii. p. 106, F 3.) Nam ut quadraginta illi dies ante 
Pascha observentur, ecclesize consuetudo roboravit ; sic etiam ut octo dies neo- 
phytorum distinguantur a ceteris, id est, ut octavus primo concinat. 


6 


Cuap. I. ὃ 7. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 189 
the Lent-fast has out of the Gospel, is the same that it has 
out of the Old Testament, which was not any precept, but the 
example of Moses and Elias. 2. That the Lent-fast is owing 
to the councils of the fathers and the custom of the Church, in 
like manner as the eight days of the neophytes, and the fifty 
days of Pentecost, owe their observation to the same original ; 
concerning which no one doubts, but that though there may 
be remotely some foundation for them in Scripture, yet there 
is no express command, but that they owe their original 
purely to the councils of the fathers and the custom of the 
Church. 


Srecr. VIIl.—Jn what Sense some of them say it is a Divine 
Institution. 


Now by this we understand what others of the ancients 
mean, when they say, the forty days’ fast is a Divine institution, 
and derived from the authority of Scripture. As St. Jerome 
says‘, “‘ Moses and Elias fasting forty days, were filled with 
the conversation of God ; and our Lord himself fasted so many 
days in the wilderness, that he might leave to us the solemn 
days of fasting.” And, again’, “ Our Lord, the true Jonas, 
being sent to preach in the world, fasted forty days, and leaving 
us the inheritance of fasting under this number, he prepares 
our souls for the eating of his body.” There are many the 
like expressions occur in the writings of St. Basil", Theophilus’, 


f Hieron. in Esaiam, 6. lviii. (Venet. vol. iv. p. 688, B.) Moyses ac Elias, 
quadraginta dierum esurie, Dei familiaritate saturati sunt, et ipse Dominus 
totidem diebus in solitudine jejunavit, ut nobis solennes jejuniorum dies relin- 
queret. 

g Ibid. inc. iii. Jonze. (vol. vi. p. 416.) Ipse Dominus, verus Jona, missus 
ad preedicationem mundi, jejunat quadraginta dies; et heereditatem nobis 
jejunii derelinquens, ad esum corporis sui sub hoe numero nostras animas 
preeparat. 

h Basil. Hom. ii. de Jejunio. (Bened. 1722. vol. ii. p. 11,C.) Eig πᾶσαν τὴν 
οἰκουμένην περιαγγέλλεται TO κήρυγμα" καὶ οὔτε τις νῆσος, οὐκ ἤπειρος, οὐ 
πόλις, οὐκ ἔθνος, οὐκ ἐσχατιὰ ἀνήκοός ἐστι τοῦ κηρύγματος" ἀλλὰ καὶ 
στρατόπεδα, καὶ ὁδοιπόροι, καὶ πλωτῆρες, καὶ ἔμποροι, πάντες ὁμοίως καὶ 
ἀκούουσι τοῦ παραγγέλματος, καὶ περιχαρῶς ὑποδέχονται: ὥστε μηδεὶς 
ἑαυτὸν ἔξω ποιείτω τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν νηστευόντων, ἐν ᾧ πάντα γένη καὶ 
πᾶσα ἡλικία καὶ ἀξιωμάτων διαφοραὶ πᾶσαι καταλέγονται. .. - Πλούσιος 


190 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


and Cyrili of Alexandria, Petrus Chrysologus*, and several 
others, which Bishop Beveridge has put together upon this 
occasion. But none of these intended to say, that there is 
any direct and express Divine command for it, but only some 
precedent or example in the extraordinary practice of the forty 
days’ fast of our Saviour, or those of Moses and Elias: which 
is not enough to ground a precept upon, because such extraor- 
dinary examples are not imitable, neither can they be reduced 
to practice but in a much lower way, which may warrant the 
Church to appoint a fast of forty days, but not to impose it as 
a matter of Divine command. Chrysostom, among the ancients, 
saw this very clearly; and therefore he says!, “ Christ did not 
say to his disciples, ‘I have fasted,’ although he might have 
spoken of those forty days; but, ‘ Learn of me, for I am meek 
and lowly of heart... And when he sent them to preach the 
Gospel, he did not tell them they should fast, but eat such 
things as were set before them. This I speak not,” says he, 


εἶ; μὴ καθυβρίσῃς τὴν νηστείαν... μή ποτέ σὲ καταγγέλλῃ ἐπὶ τοῦ 
νομοθέτου τῶν νηστειῶν. 

i Theophil. Paschal. Epist. de quo Bever. de Jejun. Quadrages. c. viii. sect. v. 
(Coteler, vol. ii. p. 165.) Tisdem fere diebus (quibus Basilius seripsit) Theophi- 
lus Alexandrinus tres suas Paschales epistolas, quas S. Hieronymus zequalis 
ejus Latinas fecit, et in lucem edidit; in quibus passim adserit, jejunium hoe 
quadragesimale ‘secundum evangelicas et apostolicas traditiones observandum 
esse.’ 

J Cyril. Hom. Paschal. (Lutet. 1738. vol. v. part. ii. p. 1.) Vid. Bever. 1. c. 
Exiguo post eum tempore, Cyrillus, Alexandrine itidem ecclesize antistes, in 
Paschalibus homiliis a se conseriptis szepe inculeat, hoe jejunium ab omnibus 
celebrandum esse κατὰ τὰς ἀποστολικὰς παραδόσεις, et nonnunquam κατὰ 
τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν παράδοσιν. 

k Chrysolog. Serm. xi. (Aug. Vind. 1758. p. 19.) Videtis, fratres, quia quod 
Quadragesimam jejunamus, non est humana inventio, auctoritas est Divina: et 
est mysticum, non preesumtum: nee est de terreno usu, sed de ccelestibus est 
secretis. Id. Serm. elxvii. p. 232. Si ergo quadraginta dierum simplex, 
purum, zequale tantis testimoniis sub tanti numero sacramenti traditum nobis a 
Domino jejunium perdocetur ; unde novitas ista, unde hebdomadz nune reso- 
lutze, nune rigidze, nune indulgentes, nimium nune severee ? 

1 Chrysostom. Hom. xlvii. in Matth. (Bened. 1718. vol. vii. p. 486, A 5.) 
Μάθετε γάρ, φησιν, ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, Ore πρᾷός εἰμι Kai ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ" Kai 
οὐκ εἶπεν, Ore ἐνήστευσα" Καί τοί γε εἶχεν εἰπεῖν τὰς τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ λέγει τοῦτο, ἀλλ᾽ Gre πρᾷός εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ πάλιν 
πέμπων αὐτοὺς, οὐκ εἶπεν, bre νηστεύετε' ἀλλὰ πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν 
ἐσθίετε... . Ταῦτα δὲ λέγω, οὐχὶ νηστείαν κακίζων" μὴ γένοιτο" ἀλλὰ καὶ 








Cuar. I. ὃ 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 191 


“to depreciate fasting, God forbid, but to give it extraordinary 
commendations: only I am sorry ye should think this, which 
is in the lowest rank of virtues, sufficient to salvation, whilst 
other things of greater value,—charity, humility, mercy,— 
which exceed even virginity itself, are wholly neglected.” By 
this it is plain, they did not think the example of Christ. suffi- 
cient to authorize the imposition of a forty days’ fast as a 
matter of Divine injunction. 


Sect. VIII.—Aow far allowed to be a Tradition, or Canon 
Apostolical. 


But, it must be owned, some of them call it a tradition, 
or canon apostolical. St. Jerome says™, ‘‘ We observe one 
Lent in the year, according to the tradition of the apostles.” 
Pope Leo” calls it the apostolical institution of a forty days’ 
fast, which the apostles instituted by the direction of the Holy 
Ghost. But it is no small diminution to the judgment of 
Pope Leo, that Mr. Pagi® and Quesnel observe of him, that 
he was used to call every thing an apostolical law, which he 
found either in the practice of his own Church, or decreed 
in the archives of his predecessors, Damasus and Siricius. 


σφόδρα ἐπαινῶν" ἀλγῶ δὲ, ὅταν τῶν ἄλλων ἠμελημένων ταύτην γνομίζητε 
ἀρκεῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν ὑμῖν, τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ χοροῦ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔχουσαν μέρος" 
τὸ γὰρ μέγιστον, ἀγάπη καὶ ἐπιείκεια καὶ ἐλεημοσύνη, ἣ καὶ παρθενίαν 
ὑπερηκόντισεν. 

m Hieron. Epist. liv. ad Marcellam. (Venet. vol. i. p. 189, B 3.) Nos unam 
Quadragesimam, secundum traditionem apostolorum, toto nobis orbe congruo, 
jejunamus. Illi (Montanistze) tres in anno faciunt Quadragesimas, quasi tres 
passi sint Salvatores, ete. 

n Leo, Serm. vi. de Quadragesima. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 168.) (Lugd. 1700. 
p- 108.) Quod ergo, dilectissimi, in omni tempore unumquemque convenit facere 
Christianum, id nune sollicitius est et devotius exsequendum ; ut apostolica 
institutio quadraginta dierum jejuniis impleatur. Id. Serm. ix. (Venet. 1753. 
vol. i. p. 177.) In quibus merito a sanctis Apostolis per doctrinam Spiritus 





Sancti majora sunt ordinata jejunia, ut per commune consortium Crucis C hristi, 
etiam nos aliquid in eo, quod propter nos gessit, ageremus. 

© Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 67, sect. xv. (Lucze, vol. i. p.650.) Familiare est 
Leoni, ut quum de apostolica traditione sermonem habet, de ea loquatur, quam 
ab apostolo Petro ecclesie Romanz relictam putabat. Ea vero ex B. Petri 
traditione descendere existimavit, quze et olim observata, et decretis sancita 
inveniebat eorum ecclesize suze pontificum, quorum monumenta supererant 1118. 
eetate, 


192 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


And for St. Jerome, he himself tells us, he sometimes calls 
particular customs of Churches by the name of apostolical 
traditions: for, writing about the Sabbath, which some 
Churches kept a fast, and others a festival, he says?, “ Every 
country may abound in their own sense, and take the precepts 
of their ancestors for apostolical laws.” And if St. Jerome 
did so here, we may easily apprehend his meaning: if he did 
otherwise, he was certainly mistaken; since it appears from 
the premises, that the apostolical Lent was much short of the 
Lent St. Jerome speaks of, and increased to the number 
of forty days by various steps and gradations. The apostolical 
Lent was only a fast of a few days before Easter: by the time 
of Dionysius of Alexandria it was come to be a whole week, 
and perhaps somewhat more (an. 250). At Rome, about the 
same time (as a very learned person? thinks, who has written 
very accurately upon the subject), it was three weeks, in the 
time when Cornelius and Novatian were contending about the 
bishopric of Rome: which made the followers of Novatian 
stick to that term in the time of Socrates, when Lent was 
improved to six weeks in Rome. From three weeks, that 
learned person thinks, it was first advanced to six, either by 
the Council of Nice, in its fifth canon, or not long before it: 
and then it began commonly to be called ‘ Quadragesima,’ or 
‘ the forty days’ fast,’ because, though in strictness the fasting- 
days were but thirty-six or thirty-one, yet the first of them 
was at least forty days before Haster, and that gave denomi- 
nation to the whole: and thus it was in the time of St. 
Jerome. But it is a wrong conclusion in him, that because 
there was an apostolical fast of some few days before Easter, 
which afterwards improved by various degrees into a fast of 
forty days, therefore the fast of forty days must needs be of 
apostolical institution : and it is more insufferable in those who, 
after four other days were added to thirty-six, to make them 


P Hieron. Epist. xxviii. ad Lucin. (Vallars. fol. Veron. 1734. vol. i. p. 433.) 
Unaquzeque provincia abundet in sensu suo, et preecepta majorum, leges Apos- 
tolicas arbitretur. 

4 Bishop Hooper, Of Lent, p. 84 and 139. If we suppose the regard to 
forty days to have first prevailed universally from the Council of Nice, we may 
suppose that the Novatians . . . kept on their three weeks. 


Cuar. I. 8 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 193 


precisely forty days of fasting, still pretend it is the very same 
Lent that was originally settled in the Church by the apostles. 
The matter in itself is not great, but the prejudice and confi- 
dence of men in managing a dispute is wonderful, when they 
will maintain a paradox, that may, with such glaring evidence, 
be so easily confuted. For, as Bishop Taylor says very well 
upon the point’, “If any man should say, that kings are all 
created as Adam was, in full stature and manhood, by God 
himself immediately, he could best be confuted by the mid- 
wives and the nurses, the schoolmasters and the servants of 
the family, and by all the neighbourhood, who saw them born 
infants, who took them from their mothers’ knees, who gave 
them suck, who carried them in their arms, who made them 
coats, and taught them their letters, who observed their 
growth, and changed their ministeries about their persons.” 
The same is the case of the present article. He that says our 
Lent, or forty days’ fast before Easter, was established by the 
apostles in that full growth and state we now see it, is per- 
fectly confuted by the testimony of those ages that saw its 
infancy and childhood, and helped to nurse it up to its present 
bulk. And with this I shall end the present inquiry about the 
original and progress of Lent, in the first ages of the Church. 


Srecr. IX.—What were the Causes or Reasons of instituting 
the Lent-Fast. 1. The Apostles’ Sorrow for the Loss of their 
Master. 


The next inquiry may be into the causes and reasons of 
its institution. And here, first of all, if we respect the original 
institution, the reason is given by Tertullian, who makes the 
Catholics say, as we have heard before, that the reason of the 
apostles’ fasting at this time was, because the Bridegroom was 
taken away from them. In compliance with which practice, 
the ancients generally observed those two days in which our 
Saviour lay in the grave with the greatest strictness, as we 
shall see more hereafter. Though the Montanists, who pre- 
tended to the spirit of prophecy, understood the taking away 
of the Bridegroom in another sense, for our Saviour’s ascension 


τ Taylor, Duct. Dubit. book iii. chap. iv. (Heber, vol. xiv. p. 38.) 
VOL. VII. Oo 


194: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΙ. 


or assumption into heaven, and therefore they kept one of 
their Lents, or fasts (for they had three in the year), after our 
Lord’s Ascension, in opposition to the Church, which cele- 
brated the whole time of Pentecost as a solemn festival. This 
we learn from St. Jerome, who not only says’, the Monta- 
nists kept three Lents in the year, but also that they kept one 
of them after Ascension‘, pretending to know, by their new 
imspiration, that that was the time which our Saviour meant, 
when he said, ‘The Bridegroom shall be taken from them, 
and then shall they fast.” So both the Catholics and the 
Montanists agreed upon the reason of a fast, though they 
applied it to a different time, according to their different 
apprehensions. 


Sect. X.—Secondly, The Declension of Christian Piety from 
its first and primitive Fervour. 


Cassian gives another reason for the institution of Lent. 
He says ", “ At first there was no observation of Lent, as long 


5. Hieron. Epist. liv. ad Marcellam. (Vallars. fol. Veron. 1734. vol. i. p. 187.) 
Thi tres in anno faciunt Quadragesimas, quasi tres passi sint Salvatores. 

Ὁ Tbid. Comment. in Matth. ix. (Venet. 1769. vol. vii. p. 51.) Sponsus, 
Christus: sponsa ecclesia est. De hoe sancto spiritualique connubio, apostoli 
sunt procreati: qui lugere non possunt, quamdiu sponsam in thalamo vident, et 
sciunt sponsum esse cum sponsa. Quando vero transierint nuptize, et passionis 
ac resurrectionis tempus advenerit, tune sponsi filii jejunabunt. Nonnulli 
putant, idcireo post dies quadraginta passionis, jejunia debere committi: licet 
statim dies Pentecostes et Spiritus Sanctus adveniens, indicant nobis festivi- 
tatem. Et ex hujus occasione testimonii, Montanus, Prisca, et Maximilla, 
etiam post Pentecosten faciunt Quadragesimam : quod ablato sponso, filii sponsi 
debeant jejunare. 

ἃ Cassian. Collat. xxi. c. xxx. (Lips. 1733. p. 573.) Sciendum sane hane 
observantiam quadragesimee, quamdiu ecclesize illius primitive perfectio invio- 
lata permansit, penitus non fuisse. Non enim preecepti hujus necessitate, nec 
quasi legali sanctione constricti, arctissimis jejuniorum terminis claudebantur, 
qui [per] totum anni spatium eequali jejunio concludebantwr. Verum quum ab 
illa apostolica devotione dese-end(isc)ens, quotidie ecredentium multitudo suis 
opibus incubaret, nee eas usui cunctorum [fidelium] secundum apostolorum 
instituta divideret, sed privatim impendiis suis consulens, non servare tantum 
sed etiam augere contenderet, Ananize et Sapphire exemplum non contenta 
sectari, id tune universis sacerdotibus placuit, ut homines curis seecularibus illi- 
gatos, et pene (ut ita dixerim) continentize vel compunctionis ignaros, ad opus 
sanctum canonica jejuniorum indictione revocarent, et velut legalium deci- 
marum necessitate compellerent, ete. 


Cuap. I. § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 195 


as the perfection of the Primitive Church remained inviolable : 
for they who fasted, as it were, all the year round, were not 
tied up by the necessity of this precept, nor confined within 
the strait bounds of such a fast, as by a legal sanction: but 
when the multitude of believers began to depart from that 
apostolical devotion, and brood continually upon their riches ; 
when, instead of imparting them to the common use of all, 
they laboured only to lay them up, and augment them for their 
own private expenses, not content to follow the example of 
Ananias and Sapphira; then it seemed good to all the bishops, 
by a canonical indiction of fasts, to recall men to holy works, 
who were bound with secular cares, and had almost forgotten 
what continency and compunction meant, and to compel them, 
by the necessity of a law, to dedicate the tenth of their time 
to God.” To the same purpose Pope Leo says Y, ‘¢ Whilst 
men are distracted about the various cares of this life, their 
religious hearts must needs be defiled with the dust of this 
world: and therefore it is provided, by the great benefit of 
this Divine institution, that the purity of our minds might be 
repaired by the exercise of these forty days, in which we may 
redeem the failings of other times, and do good works, and 
exercise ourselves in religious fasting.” 


ν Leo, Serm. xlii. de Quadragesima iv. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 156.) (Bibl. 
Patr. tom. vii. p. 1014. Lugd. 1677.) (Lugd. 1700. p. 104.) Quamvis nulla sint 
tempora, que Divinis non sint_plena muneribus, et semper nobis ad misericor- 
diam Dei per ipsius gratiam preestetur accessus; nunc tamen omnium mentes 
majori studio ad spiritales profectus moveri, et ampliori fiducia oportet animari, 
quando ad universa pietatis officia illius nos dici, in quo redemti sumus, re- 
cursus invitat: ut excellens super omnia Passionis Dominicze sacramentum, 
purificatis et corporibus et animis, celebremus. Debebatur quidem tantis 
mysteriis ita incessabilis devotio et continuata reverentia, ut tales permanere- 
mus in conspectu Dei, quales nos in ipso Paschali festo dignum est inveniri. 
Sed quia hzee fortitudo paucorum est, et dum ecarnis fragilitati austerior obser- 
vantia relaxatur, dumque per varias actiones vitee hujus solicitudo distenditur, 
necesse est de mundano pulvere etiam gloriosa corda sordescere; magna 
Divinze institutionis salubritate provisum est, ut ad reparandam mentium 
puritatem quadraginta nobis dierum exercitatio mederetur, in quibus aliorum 
temporum culpas et pia opera redimerent, et jejunia casta decoquerent. 


196 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


Srecr. X1.—Thirdly, That Men might prepare themselves for a 
worthy Participation of the Communion at aster. 


A third reason was, that men might prepare their souls 
for a worthy participation of the communion at Kaster. For 
though men, at first, were used to communicate every Lord’s- 
day, and to keep themselves continually in a constant, habitual 
preparation for that holy mystery; yet, as the primitive spirit 
of Christianity declined, men came by degrees to communicate 
chiefly at Haster, and some at no other time but that only. 
For the sake of these men, therefore, the observation of the 
preceding fast was much urged, that by proper and spiritual 
exercises they might be duly prepared to receive the commu- 
nion at Kaster, who could not be prevailed upon to frequent it 
at other seasons. This is what we have heard St. Chrysostom ¥ 
say before, ‘‘ That because men were used to come indevoutly 
and inconsiderately to the communion, especially at Easter, 
when Christ first instituted the holy supper; therefore the 
Fathers, considering the mischiefs arising from such careless 
approaches, met together, and appointed forty days of fasting ; 
that in these days men, being carefully purified by prayer, and 
alms-deeds, and fasting, and watching, and tears, and confession 
of sins, and other the like exercises, might come with a pure 
conscience to the holy table.” To the same purpose, in 
another place*, ‘“‘ As they that take great pains to run ina 
race, reap no advantage if they fail of the prize ; so we have no 
benefit from all the labour and pains we bestow upon fasting, 
unless we can come with a pure conscience to partake of the 


w Chrysostom. Hom. lii. in eos qui Pascha jejunant. See sect. vi. note (b), 
p. 187. 

x Chrysostom. Hom. xxii. de Iva. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 199.) “Ὥσπερ 
οὐδὲν ὄφελος τῶν πολλῶν διαύλων τοῖς τρέχουσιν, ἂν τῶν βραβείων ἐκπέ- 
σωσιν᾽ οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡμῖν ἔσται τι κέρδος ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν πόνων καὶ 
ἱδρώτων, τῶν περὶ τὴν νηστείαν, ἐὰν μὴ μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος δυνηθῶ- 
μεν τῆς ἱερᾶς ἀπολαῦσαι τραπέζης. διὰ τοῦτο νηστεία καὶ τεσσαρακοστὴ, 
καὶ τοσούτων ἡμερῶν σύναξις, καὶ ἀκρόασις, καὶ εὐχαὶ, καὶ διδασκαλίαι, ἵνα 
παντὶ τρόπῳ τὰ παρὰ πάντα τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἡμῖν ἁμαρτήματα προστρι- 
βέντα διὰ τῆς σπουδῆς ταύτης τῶν θεϊκῶν ἐνταλμάτων ἀποσμηξάμενοι, 
μετὰ παῤῥησίας πνευματικῆς μετάσχωμεν εὐλαβῶς τῆς ἀναιμάκτου ἐκείνης 
θυσίας. 


Cuap. I. ὃ 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 197 


holy table. For this end we use fasting and Lent, and assem- 
blies for so many days together, and hearing, and praying, 
and preaching ; that by our diligence in the use of these means, 
and regard to the Divine commands, we may wipe off the sins 
of the whole year that stick to us, and so with spiritual bold- 
ness and reverence partake of the unbloody sacrifice.” The 
like is said by St. Jerome, ‘“‘ That our Lord fasted forty days, 
and leaving us the inheritance of fasting under this number, 
prepares our souls for the eating of his body. And this I 
take to have been the principal cause of the Church’s enlarging 
her Lent to the length of forty days, as occasion required, 
from such small beginnings, as it seems to have had in its 
first original. 


Secr. XI].—Pourthly, That Catechumens might prepare them- 
selves for Baptisin. 


Besides these general reasons for the observation of Lent, 
there were two particular reasons more peculiarly respecting 
two orders of men in the Church, viz. the catechumens who 
were preparing for baptism, and the penitents who were pre- 
paring for absolution. It has been noted elsewhere’, that 
Easter was the fixed and solemn time, both for admitting 
catechumens to baptism, and readmitting penitents after 
lapsing, and performing a solemn penance, into the communion 
of the Church again. And solemn fasting was preparatory to 
each of these. Justin Martyr speaks of a general fast of the 
whole Church, together with the catechumens, who presented 
themselves to baptism: ‘‘ As many,” says he*, “as are per- 
suaded, and do believe that the things taught and said by us 


y Hieron. in Jon. 6. iii. (Venet. 1768. vol. vi. p. 416, D.) Ipse Dominus verus 
Jona, missus ad preedicationem mundi, jejunat quadraginta dies: et hzeredi- 
tatem nobis jejunii derelinquens, ad esum corporis sui sub hoe numero nostras 
animas preeparat. 

% Book xi. chap. vi. sect. vii. vol. iii. p. 514. 

a Justin. Apol. i. (Paris. 1742. p. 71, D.) “Ὅσοι ἂν πεισθῶσι καὶ πιστεύωσιν, 
ἀληθῆ ταῦτα τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν διδασκόμενα Kai λεγόμενα εἷναι, Kai βιοῦν οὕτως 
δύνασθαι ὑπισχνῶνται, εὔχεσθαί τε καὶ αἰτεῖν νηστεύοντες παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
τῶν προημαρτημένων ἄφεσιν διδάσκονται, ἡμῶν συνευχομένων καὶ συν- 
νηστευόντων αὐτοῖς. ἔπειτα ἄγονται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστὶ, καὶ τρόπον 


ἀναγεννήσεως ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἀνεγεννήθημεν, ἀναγεννῶνται. 


198 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


are true, and promise to live accordingly ; they are instructed 
to pray, and, with fasting, to beg of God remission of sins, we 
praying and fasting together with them. Then they are 
brought to the place where water is, and are regenerated after 
the same manner of regeneration, as we were regenerated before 
them.” This is a plain account of a public fast before baptism. 
Afterward, when the time of baptism was settled to Easter, it 
is certain the Lent-fast was observed by the catechumens, as 
preparatory to their baptism. For Cyril of Jerusalem thus 
addresses himself to the catechumens”: “ The present season 
is a season of confession : all worldly cares are to be laid aside; 
for you strive for your souls. You that have been busy about 
the things of the world, and troubled in vain so many years, 
will ye not bestow forty days in prayer for the salvation of 
your souls?’ So again ὦ, “ There is a large time given you: 
you have the penance before you of forty days, sufficient space 
and opportunity to put off the old garments, and put on the 
new.” Upon this account, all candidates of baptism were 
obliged to give in their names forty days before baptism, which 
Cyril calls ὀνοματογραφία, ‘the entering of their names 4,’ in 
the same place. This is intimated by the fourth Council of 
Carthage, which orders δ, ‘“‘ That they who are to receive bap- 
tism, shall give in their names, and continue a long time under 
abstinence from wine and flesh, and use imposition of hands, 
and frequent examination.” The time of forty days is not 
particularly specified here, but it is plainly expressed in one of 
the canons of Siricius, which speaks of giving baptism, at 


Ὁ Cyril. Catech. i. sect. v. (Bened. Paris. 1763. p. 18.) Καιρὸς ἐξομολογή- 
σεως ὁ παρὼν... πᾶσαν μέριμναν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐξάλειψον ἀπὸ σοῦ" περὶ 
ψυχῆς γὰρ τρέχεις". .. τοσούτους κύκλους ἐνιαυτῶν διῆλθες, περὶ τὸν 
κόσμον μάτην ἀσχολούμενος, καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας οὐ σχολάζεις τῇ 
προσευχῇ διὰ τὴν σαυτοῦ ψυχήν. 

ὁ Cyril. in Preefat. sect. iv. (Paris. 1763. p.5, A 7.) Πολλή σοι ἡ προθεσ- 
pia’ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν μετάνοιαν ἔχεις" ἔχεις πολλὴν εὐκαιρίαν, καὶ 
ἐκδύσασθαι, καὶ ἀποπλύνασθαι, καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι, καὶ εἰσελθεῖν. 


d Ibid. sect. i, (ibid. p. 2, A 5.) ᾿Ονοματογραφία τέως ὑμῖν γέγονε, καὶ 





στρατείας κλῆσις. Id. sect. iii. "Ovopa σου ἐνεγράφη. 
e Cone. Carth. IV. ὁ. Ixxxv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1206.) Baptizandi nomen 
suum dent, et diu [sub abstinentia vini et carnium, ac manus impositione crebra 


examinati[one] baptismum percipiant. 


Cuap. I. § 13. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 199 


Easter ‘, only to such as gave in their names forty days before, 
and continued under the daily discipline of exorcism, prayer, 
and fasting. Which shows that this fast of forty days was 
then a time more peculiarly observed by such catechumens as 
were preparing for baptism at Easter following. 


Sect. XIIJ.—And Penitents for Absolution at Easter. 


The like discipline was observed towards penitents, who, 
after their canonical penance was completed, were generally 
absolved about the time of the Paschal festival: and therefore 
it is reasonable to suppose, that the preceding time of Lent 
was always more strictly observed by them, as a decent prepa- 
ration for the absolution they then expected. Not that this 
was the only time of penance, especially for great and scan- 
dalous criminals: for many of these were kept under penance 
for many years successively, as has been showed in a former 
Book: but the ordinary time of absolving them was Kaster ; 
as we learn not only from the testimony of St. Ambrose 8 and 
others, alleged heretofore in the discourse of absolution”, but 
from Gregory Nyssen, who says‘, ‘‘ The anniversary solemnity 
of Easter was not only the time of regenerating catechumens, 
but of begetting those again to a lively hope, who had forfeited 


f Siric. Epist. i. ad Himerium, ec. ii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1018, C 6.) Gene- 
ra-lia(tim) baptismatis tradi convenit sacramenta, his duntaxat electis, qui ante 
quadraginta vel eo amplius dies nomen dederint, et exorcismis, quotidianisque 
orationibus atque jejuniis fuerint expiati. 

& Ambros. Epist. xxxiii. ad Marcellin. Sororem. (Paris. 1836. vol. iv. p. 270.) 
Erat dies, quo Dominus sese pro nobis tradidit, quo in ecclesia pcenitentia 
relaxantur. 

h Book xix. chap. ii. sect. x. 

i Nyssen. Epist. Canon. ad Letoium, (tom. ii. p. 114, B 9. Paris. 1638.) 
(Paris. 1615. vol. i. p. 946, B 10.) Ἣ καθολικὴ καὶ αὕτη τῆς κτίσεως ἑορτὴ 
κατὰ τὴν τεταγμένην περίοδον τοῦ ἐνιαυσιαίου κύκλου καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἔτος, 
ἐν παντὶ πληρουμένη τῷ κόσμῳ, ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει τοῦ πεπτωκότος ἐπιτελεῖ- 
Tau πτῶσις δὲ ἐστιν ἡ ἁμαρτία: ἀνάστασις δὲ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ πτώματος τῆς 
ἁμαρτίας ἀνόρθωσις'" καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην, οὐ μόνον 
τοὺς ἐκ παλιγγενεσίας μεταστοιχειουμένους, διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ χάριτος τῷ 
Θεῷ προσάγειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς διὰ τῆς μετανοίας τε καὶ ἐπιστροφῆς ἀπὸ 
τῶν νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὴν ζῶσαν ὁδὸν πάλιν ἐπανιόντας, καὶ τούτους 
χειραγωγεῖν πρὸς τὴν σώζουσαν ἐλπίδα, ἧς διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀπεξενώ- 
θησαν. 


200 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΙ. 


it by their sin, but were desirous to regain it by repentance 
and conversion from dead works, to walk again in the paths of 
life.” The same is intimated in the canons of Ancyra/, and 
those of Peter of Alexandria, and the Epistles of Cyprian, all 
which speak of Easter as the great and solemn time of admit- 
ting penitents; as a learned prelate of our Church has, with 
great judgment and acuteness, observed out of them*. And 
thence we may infer, that penitents, who were bound to strict 


J Cone. Ancyran. ὁ. vi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1457.) Περὶ τῶν ἀπειλῇ μόνον 
εἰξάντων κολάσεως, Kai ἀφαιρέσεως ὑπαρχόντων, ἢ μετοικίας, Kai θυσάντων, 
καὶ μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος καιροῦ μὴ μετανοησάντων, μηδὲ ἐπιστρεψάντων, 
νῦν δὲ παρὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς συνόδου προσελθόντων, καὶ εἰς διάνοιαν τῆς 
ἐπιστροφῆς γενομένων" ἔδοξε μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας εἰς ἀκρόασιν δεχθῆ- 
ναι, καὶ μετὰ τὴν μεγάλην ἡμέραν ὑποπεσεῖν τρία ἔτη, καὶ μετὰ ἄλλα δύο 
ἔτη κοινωνῆσαι χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, καὶ οὕτως ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον, ὥστε τὴν 
πᾶσαν ἑξαετίαν πληρῶσαι. Hi δὲ τινες πρὸ τῆς συνόδου ταύτης ἐδέχθησαν 
εἰς μετάνοιαν, ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου λελογίσθαι αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς 
ἑξαετίας" εἰ μέν τοι κίνδυνος καὶ θανάτου προσδοκία ἐκ νόσου ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς 
προφάσεως συμβαίη, τούτους ἐπὶ ὕρῳ δεχθῆναι. Petr. Alex. 6. i. (Labbe, 
vol. i. p. 995.) ᾿Επεὶ τοίνυν τέταρτον ἤδη πάσχα ἐπικατείληφε τὸν διωγμὸν, 
αὐτάρκως ἔχει τοῖς μὲν προσενεχθεῖσι καὶ φυλακισθεῖσι, βασάνους τε ἀνυπ- 





οίστους ὑπομεμνηκόσι καὶ ἀφορήτους μάστιγας, καὶ πολλὰς ἑτέρας ἀνάγκας 
δεινὰς, ὕστερον δὲ προδιδομένοις ὑπὸ τῆς ἀσθενείας τῆς σαρκὸς, εἰ καὶ μὴ 
ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρεδέχθησαν διὰ τὴν παρακολουθήσασαν μεγίστην πτῶσιν, ὁμῶς 
διὰ τὸ πολλὰ αὐτοὺς ἠθληκέναι καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ ἀντιμάχεσθαι: οὐ γὰρ κατὰ 
προαίρεσιν ἐν τούτῳ ἐληλύθασιν, ἀλλὰ καταπροδοθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς ἀσθενείας 
τῆς σαρκός" ἐπειδὴ καὶ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐνδείκνυνται ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν 
αὐτῶν, καὶ ἤδη τινὲς τρίτον ἔτος ἔχουσι καταπεγθοῦντες" προσεπιτιμηθῆναι 
αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς προσελεύσεως Kal’ ὑπόμνησιν, ἄλλας τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας, 
ἃς καίπερ νηστεύσας ὁ Κύριος καὶ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, μετὰ τὸ 
βαπτισθῆναι, ἐπειράσθη ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου εἰς ἃς καὶ αὐτοὶ κατὰ τὸ περισ- 
σὸν διαγυμνασθέντες, ἐντονώτερόν τε νήψαντες, γρηγορήσουσιν εἰς προσευ- 
χὰς τοῦ λοιποῦ, καταμελετῶντες τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὸν 
πειράζοντα αὐτὸν, ἵνα προσκυνήσῃ αὐτῷ, Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μοῦ, Σατανᾶ" 
γέγραπται γὰρ, Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις, καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύ- 
σεις. Cyprian. Ep. lvi. (Oxon. 1682. p. 116.) Quoniam scripsistis, ut cum 
pluribus collegis de hoe ipso plenissime tractem, et res tanta exigit majus et 





impensius de multorum collatione consilium, et nune omnes fere, inter Paschze 
prima solennia, apud se cum fratribus demorantur; quando solennitati cele- 
brand apud suos satisfecerint, et ad me venire coeperint, tractabo cum singulis 
plenius, ete, 

k Hooper, Of Lent, chap. vi. p. 93. We may justly suppose St. Cyprian was 
consulted before Easter, about the same ease, the reconciliation of those who 
had been penitents three years; that if he had answered favourably, they might 
have been admitted at the approaching festival. 


Cuap. I. § 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 90] 


rules of penance all the year round, and many times year after 
year under a long course of discipline, were more exactly care- 
ful in the observation of this season, in hopes of obtaining their 
absolution in the close of it. Whence St. Jerome observes’, 
“That forty was a number proper for penitents, and fasting, 
and sackcloth, and tears, and perseverance in deprecating 
God’s anger. For which reason Moses also fasted forty days 
in Mount Sinai: and Elias flying from Jezebel, and the wrath 
of God impending upon Israel, is described as fasting forty 
days. Our Lord also himself, the true Jonas, who was sent 
to preach to the world, fasted forty days ; and leaving us the 
inheritance of his fasting, he still prepares our souls for the 
eating of his body by the same number.” 


Srcr. XIV.—Lent generally observed by all Christians, though 
with a great Liberty and just Allowance to Men's Infirmities, 
being, in a great measure, left to their own Discretion. 


Thus we see catechumens and public penitents were strictly 
obliged to the observation of Lent, as part of their discipline 
and preparation for baptism and absolution. Nor was the 
great body of the Church backward, at this season, to concur 
in fasting and prayer with them. For Chrysostom says”, 


1 Hieron. Comment. in Jon. iii. (Venet. 1768. vol. vi. p. 416, C.) Quadragena- 
rius numerus convenit peccatoribus, et jejunio, et orationi, et sacco, et lacrimis, 
et perseverantize deprecandi: ob quod et Moyses quadraginta diebus jejunavit 
in Monte Sina, et Elias fugiens Jezabel, indicta fame terre Israel, et Dei 
desuper ira pendente, quadraginta dies jejunasse deseribitur. Ipse quoque 
Dominus, verus Jona, missus ad przedicationem mundi, jejunat quadraginta 
dies: et hiereditatem nobis jejunii derelinquens, ad esum corporis sui sub hoc 
numero nostras animas preeparat. 

m Chrysostom. Hom. lii. in eos qui Pascha jejunant. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. 
p- 611, D7.) Ἡμεῖς μὲν ἂν διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ μένωμεν βοῶντες καὶ 
κηρύττοντες νηστείαν, οὐδεὶς προσέχει τοῖς λεγομένοις" ἂν δὲ ἐπιστῇ μόνον 
ὁ τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς καιρὸς, καὶ μηδενὸς παραινοῦντος, μηδὲ συμβουλεύον- 
τος, καὶ ὁ σφόδρα νωθρότατος διανίσταται, τὴν παρὰ τοῦ καιροῦ λαμβάνων 

4 ‘ , SEX x ” , ᾽ τιν , 0 , 
συμβουλὴν καὶ παραίνεσιν: ἂν οὖν ἔρηταί σε ᾿Ιουδαῖος καὶ Ἕλλην, τίνος 
ἕνεκεν νηστεύεις; μὴ εἴπῃς, ὅτι διὰ τὸ πάσχα, μηδὲ OTe διὰ τὸν σταυρὸν, 
? 4 ‘ ᾽ - ΄ ‘ , ᾽ , . 4 fd , 
ἐπεὶ πολλὴν αὐτῷ δίδως τὴν λαβήν. οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστεύομεν, 
οὐδὲ διὰ τὸν σταυρὸν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τὰ ἡμέτερα, ἐπειδὴ μέλλο- 
μὲν μυστηρίοις προσίεναι" ἐπεὶ Toye πάσχα οὐ νηστείας ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ πένθους, 

ἜΡΩΣ τῷ , : aa Nant oer. Α Sh pees 
ἀλλ᾽ εὐφροσύνης Kai χαρᾶς ὑπόθεσις. . . . Οὐ yap πενθοῦμεν Ov ἐκεῖνον 
[σταυρὸν], μὴ γένοιτο, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἁμαρτήματα: διὰ τοῦτο νηστεύο- 


202 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


‘“‘ Though at other times when we preachers ery up and preach 
the duty of fasting never so much all the year, scarce any one 
hearkens to what we say: yet when the season of forty days 
is come, though none exhort or advise them, the most negli- 
gent set themselves to it, taking admonition and advice from 
the very season.” Lent, it seems, was then generally reputed 
a proper time to fast, and repent, and mourn for sin; that 
such as were negligent at other times, might take this oppor- 
tunity to recollect and humble themselves, and come duly pre- 
pared to the communion at the Easter festival. ‘‘ Therefore,” 
he adds immediately, “if a Jew or a heathen ask you why you 
fast, do not tell him, ‘It is for our Saviour’s Passion, or the 
cross ;’ for so you will give him a handle to accuse you: for 
we do not fast for the Passion or the cross, but for our sins, 
because we are to come to the holy mysteries. The Passion 
is not the occasion of fasting or mourning, but of joy and 
exultation: we mourn not for that, but for our sins: and 
therefore we fast.” But then this fast was observed with a 
great deal of liberty. For he says in the same place, “If a 
man come with a pure conscience, he keeps the Pasch, whether 
he partakes of the communion to-day, or to-morrow, or at any 
other time.” And, therefore, he says, in another place”, “It 
was usual, in Lent, for the people to ask one another how many 
weeks they had fasted; and one would answer, he had fasted 
two weeks; another, three; another, all. And what advan- 
tage is it, if we have kept the fast without mending our morals ? 
If another says, “1 have fasted the whole Lent,’ say thou, ‘I 


n A ~ , , , > ~ n , 
μεν. ... ἂν μετὰ καθαροῦ προσέλθῃ συνειδότος, πάσχα ἐπιτελεῖ, κἂν σήμε- 
ρον, κἂν αὔριον, κἂν ὁποτεοῦν μετάσχῃ τῆς κοινωνίας. οὐ γὰρ ἐν παρατη- 
ρήσει καιρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν συνειδότι καθαρῷ ἡ ἀρίστη κρίνεται πρόσοδος. 

n Chrysostom. Hom. xvi. ad Popul. Antioch. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 168, E. 
2 
Ἔθος ἅ é ὧν κατὰ τὴ κοστὴ ὁσας ἕκαστος ἑβδομάδας 
ς ἅπασιν ἐρωτᾷν κατὰ τὴν τεσσαρακοστὴν, πόσας ἕκαστος μάδας 
ἐνήστευσε" καὶ ἔστιν ἀκοῦσαι λεγόντων, τῶν μὲν, bre δύο, τῶν δὲ, OTL τρεῖς, 
τῶν δὲ, ὅτι πάσας ἐνήστευσαν ἑβδομάδας" καὶ τί τὸ κέρδος, ἐὰν ἔρημοι 
κατορθωμάτων παρέλθωμεν τὴν νηστείαν ; ἐὰν ἕτερος λέγῃ, OTL πᾶσαν 
ἐνήστευσα τὴν τεσσαρακοστὴν, σὺ εἰπὲ, ὅτι ἐχθρὸν εἶχον, καὶ κατηλλάγην" 
ἔθος εἶχον κατηγορεῖν, καὶ ἐπαυσάμην" ἔθος εἶχον ὀμνύναι, καὶ ἔλυσα τὸ 
πονηρὸν ἔθος. Οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς ἐμπόροις, ἂν πολὺ μῆκος πελάγους παρα- 
δ ’ > ᾽ - 4 , ᾿ ‘ ~ ~ > , Ὁ > ‘ 
δράμωσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μετὰ φορτίων πλέωσι καὶ πολλῆς τῆς ἐμπορίας" οὐδὲν 
ὄφελος τῆς νηστείας ἡμῖν, ἂν παρέλθωμεν αὐτὴν ἁπλῶς, εἰκῆ καὶ μάτην. 


Cuar. 1. § 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 203 


had an enemy, and I am reconciled to him; I had a custom of 
reviling, and I have left it off; I was used to swearing, and 1 
have broken the evil habit.’ It is of no advantage to fast, if 
our fasting do not produce such fruits as these.” In other 
places, he intimates that a great liberty was allowed men in 
regard to their infirmities: and that they were left, in a great 
measure, to fast at their own discretion. ‘‘ Let no one,” says 
he °, “place his confidence in fasting only, if he continues in 
his sins without reforming. For it may be, one that fasts not 
at all, may obtain pardon, if he has the excuse of bodily in- 
firmity: but he that does not correct his sins, can have no 
excuse. Thou hast not fasted by reason of the weakness of 
thy body: but why art thou not reconciled to thy enemies ζ 
Canst thou pretend bodily infirmity here? If thou retainest 
hatred and envy, what apology canst thou make? In such 
crimes as these thou canst not fly to the refuge of bodily 
weakness.” So again more copiously prosecuting this matter 
in another place ?: “If thou canst not pass all the day fasting, 
by reason of bodily weakness, no wise man can condemn thee 
for this. For we have a kind and merciful Lord, who requires 
nothing of us above our strength. He neither requires absti- 
nence from meat, nor fasting simply of us; nor that, for this 
end, we should continue without eating only ; but that, seques- 
tering ourselves from worldly affairs, we should spend all our 
leisure time in spiritual things. For if we would order our 
lives soberly, and lay out our spare hours upon spiritual things, 


© Ibid. Hom. xxii. de Ira. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 199, C 3.) Μηδεὶς μόνῃ τῇ 
νηστείᾳ ἐπιστηριζέσθω, ἐὰν τοῖς κακοῖς ἔμεινεν ἀδιόρθωτος" τὸν μὲν γὰρ 
μὴ νηστεύοντα εἰκὸς καὶ συγγνώμης τυχεῖν, σώματος ἀσθένειαν προβαλλό- 
μενον" τὸν δὲ μὴ διορθώσαντα ἑαυτοῦ τὰ πλημμελήματα, ἀμήχανον ἀπολο- 
γίας τυχεῖν. Οὐκ ἐνήστευσας διὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς ἀσθένειαν" τοῖς ἐχθροῖς 
σου τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ κατηλλάγης, εἰπέ μοι; μὴ καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἀσθένειαν 
σώματος προβαλέσθαι ἔχεις ; πάλιν ἂν βασκανίαν καὶ φθόνον μένῃς ἔχων, 
ποίαν ἕξεις ἀπολογίαν, εἰπέ prot 3 οὐδαμοῦ γὰρ ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ἐλαττώμασιν 
ἐπὶ σώματος ἀσθένειάν ἐστι καταφυγεῖν. 

P Chrysostom. Hom. x. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 72, Ο 6.) Eé ov 
ἀσθένειαν σωματικὴν οὐ δύνασαι ἄσιτος παρατείνειν τὴν ἡμέραν; οὐδεὶς 
εὐφρονῶν ὑπὲρ τούτου σοι ἐγκαλέσαι δυνήσεται: Δεσπότην γὰρ ἔχομεν 
ἥμερον καὶ φιλάνθρωπον, καὶ οὐδὲν τῶν ὑπὲρ δύναμιν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐκζη- 
τοῦντα' οὐδὲ γὰρ τὴν ἀποχὴν τῶν βρωμάτων, καὶ τὴν νηστείαν ἁπλῶς 
ἀπαιτεῖ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι, οὐδὲ διὰ τοῦτο, ἵνα ἄσιτοι διαμείνωμεν μόνον, 


904A THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


and eat only so much as we had need of and nature required, 
and spend our whole lives in good works, we should not need 
the help of fasting. But because human nature is negligent, 
and gives itself rather to ease and pleasure ; therefore our kind 
Lord, as a compassionate father, hath found out this medicine 
of fasting for us, that we should abridge ourselves in our plea- 
sures, and transfer our care of secular things to works of a 
spiritual nature. If, therefore, there be any here present who 
are hindered by bodily infirmity, and cannot continue all the 
day fasting, I exhort them to have regard to the weakness of 
their bodies, and not upon that account deprive themselves of 
this spiritual instruction, but, for that very reason, to pay 
more diligent attendance on it. For there are many ways 
besides abstinence from meat, which will open to us the door 
of confidence towards God. He, therefore, that eats, and 
cannot fast, let him give the more plentiful alms; let him be 
more fervent in his prayers; let him show the greater alacrity 
and readiness in hearing the Divine oracles : for the weakness 
of the body is no impediment in such offices as these: let him 
be reconciled to his enemies, and forget injuries, and cast all 
thoughts of revenge out of his mind. He that does these 
things, will show forth the true fasting, which the Lord chiefly 
requires. ‘Therefore I exhort you who are able to fast, to go 
on with all possible alacrity in this good and laudable work. 


ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἀφιστῶντες ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν βιωτικῶν πραγμάτων, πᾶσαν τὴν 
σχολὴν ἐν τοῖς πνευματικοῖς ἀναλίσκωμεν" ὡς εἰ μετὰ νηφούσης διανοίας 
τὸν ἑαυτῶν βίον οἰκονομῶμεν, καὶ περὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ πᾶσαν τὴν σχολὴν 
ἐπιδεικνύμεθα, καὶ τῇ τροφῇ οὕτω προσίωμεν, ὡς τὴν χρείαν μόνον πληροῦν, 
καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀγαθαῖς πράξεσιν ἅπαντα τὸν βίον καταναλίσκειν, οὐδὲ χρεία 
ἡμῖν ἣν τῆς βοηθείας τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς νηστείας" ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ῥᾳθυμός ἐστιν ἡ 
φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη, καὶ τῇ ἀνέσει καὶ τῇ τρυφῇ μᾶλλον ἑαυτὴν ἐπιδίδωσι, 
διὰ τοῦτο καθάπερ πατὴρ φιλόστοργος τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς νηστείας ἡμῖν ἰατρείαν 
ἐπενόησεν ὁ φιλάνθρωπος δεσπότης, ἵνα καὶ τὰ τῆς τρυφῆς ἡμῖν ἐκκόπτηται, 
καὶ τὴν περὶ τὰ βιωτικὰ φροντίδα μεταγάγωμεν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν πνευματικῶν 
ἐργασίαν" ἂν τοίνυν oi τινες τῶν ἐνταῦθα συνιόντων ὑπὸ ἀσθενείας 
σωματικῆς κωλυόμενοι, καὶ μὴ δυνάμενοι ἄσιτοι διαμένειν, τούτοις παραινῶ 
καὶ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τὴν σωματικὴν παραμυθεῖσθαι, καὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας 
ταύτης τῆς πνευματικῆς μὴ ἀποστερεῖν ἑαυτοὺς, ἀλλὰ ταύτῃ μᾶλλον 
πλείονα τὴν σπουδὴν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι" εἰσὶ γάρ, εἰσιν ὁδοὶ πολλαὶ μείζους τῆς 
ἀποχῆς τῶν βρωμάτων, αἱ δυνάμεναι τὰς θύρας ἡμῖν ἀνοίγειν τῆς παῤῥη- 
σίας τῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" ὁ τροφῆς τοίνυν μεταλαμβάνων, καὶ νηστεύειν μὴ 


Cuap. 1. § 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 905 


For by how much more our outward man perishes, so much 
more our inward man is renewed. For fasting restrains the 
body, and checks and bridles its inordinate sallies ; but makes 
the soul much brighter, and gives it wings to mount up and 
soar on high. Do you also exhort your brethren that are not 
able to fast for the weakness of their bodies, that they should 
not, upon that account, absent themselves from this spiritual 
food: but teach them and inform them what you have learned 
of us, that he that eats and drinks with moderation, is not 
unworthy of this auditory, but only he that is negligent and 
dissolute. Tell them what the apostle says, ‘ Both he that 
eateth, eateth to the Lord: and he that eateth not, to the 
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks : therefore he 
that fasteth, giveth God thanks, who has enabled him to bear 
the labour of fasting ; and he that eateth, gives God thanks 
likewise, that this is no prejudice to the salvation of his soul, 


δυνάμενος, δαψιλεστέραν τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ἐπιδεικνύσθω, εὐχὰς ἐκτενεῖς, τὴν 
προθυμίαν ἐπιτεταμένην ἐχέτω περὶ τὴν ἀκρόασιν τῶν θείων λογίων" 
ἐνταῦθα οὐδὲν ἡ τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένεια ἐμπόδιον ἡμῖν γίνεται" τοῖς ἐχθροῖς 
καταλλαττέσθω, πᾶσαν μνησικακίαν ἐξοριζέτω τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς" ἂν ταῦτα 
κατορθοῦν βούληται, τὴν ἀληθῆ νηστείαν ἐπιδειξάτω, καὶ ἣν μάλιστα 
πάντων ἀπαιτεῖ Tap ἡμῶν ὁ δεσπότης" ἐπεὶ καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἀποχὴν τῶν 
βρωμάτων διὰ τοῦτο κελεύει γίνεσθαι, ἵνα χαλινοῦντες τὰ σκιρτήματα τῆς 
σαρκὸς, εὐήνιον αὐτὴν ἐργαζώμεθα πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐκπλήρωσιν" εἰ 
δὲ μέλλοιμεν μηδὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς νηστείας βοήθειαν ἑαυτοῖς προσάγειν διὰ 
τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀσθένειαν, καὶ πλείονα τὴν ῥᾳθυμίαν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι, 
λανθάνομεν ἑαυτοὺς τὰ μέγιστα ζημιούμενοι" εἰ γὰρ μετὰ νηστείας ἡ τῶν 
προειρημένων κατορθωμάτων ἔλλειψις οὐδὲν ἡμᾶς ὀνίνησι, πολλῷ μᾶλλον εἰ 
μηδὲ τῷ φαρμάκῳ τῆς νηστείας χρήσασθαι δυνάμενοι, πλείονα τὴν ῥᾳθυμίαν 
ἐπιδειξόμεθα: ταῦτα δὴ μαθόντες παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, παρακαλῶ, οἱ νηστεύειν δυνά- 
μενοι, αὐτοί τε καθ᾽ ὅσον οἵόντε ἐπιτείνετε ὑμῶν τὴν καλὴν ταύτην καὶ 
ἐπαινετὴν προθυμίαν: ὅσῳ γὰρ ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος διαφθείρεται, τοσοῦτον 
ὁ ἔσω ἀνακαινοῦται' ἡ γὰρ νηστεία τὸ μὲν σῶμα κατατείνει, καὶ χαλινοῖ τὰ 
ἄτακτα σκιρτήματα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν διαυγεστέραν ἐργάζεται καὶ πτεροῖ, καὶ 
μετάρσιον καὶ κούφην ποιεῖ: καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς δὲ τοὺς ὑμετέρους, ὅσοι διὰ 
σωματικὴν ἀσθένειαν νηστεύειν οὐ δύνανται, προτρέπεσθε μὴ ἀπολιμπάνεσ- 
θαι τῆς πνευματικῆς ταύτης τροφῆς, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς, καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν 
αὐτοῖς διαπορθμεύοντες, καὶ δεικνῦντες, ὅτι ὁ φαγὼν καὶ πιὼν μετρίως οὐκ 
ἀνάξιός ἐστι ταύτης τῆς ἀκροάσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ῥᾷάθυμος καὶ διακεχυμένος" καὶ 
λέγετε πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὸ ἀποστολικὸν λόγιον, Ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων, Κυρίῳ ἐσθίει, 
καὶ ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων, Κυρίῳ οὐκ ἐσθίει, καὶ εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ Θεῷ" καὶ ὁ νηστεύων 
τοίνυν εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, ὕτι δύναμιν ἔσχε δυναμένην ἀντισχεῖν πρὸς τὸν 
πόνον τῆς νηστείας" καὶ ὁ ἐσθίων πάλιν εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι οὐδὲν 
αὐτὸν τοῦτο λυμῴνασθαι δύναται πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν, ἐὰν θέλῃ. 


206 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book ΧΧΙ. 


if he be otherwise willing and obedient.” I have recited these 
passages at large out of Chrysostom, to show what notion he 
had of the obligation men were under to observe the Lent- 
fast. If men were in health, and able to bear it, the rule and 
custom was for them to observe it; and they generaliy did so 
without any further admonition: but if they did not comply, 
their non-compliance did not debar them from the communion 
at Haster, or lay them under any ecclesiastical censure as 
great delinquents. On the other hand, if they pleaded bodily 
infirmity and weakness, that was always accepted as a just 
apology, provided they made it appear by their other good 
works, that they were sincere and zealous, and not merely 
acting a part in the business of religion. 

And some footsteps of this liberty, in leaving men to a dis- 
cretionary observation of Lent, are described by learned men 
in several other writers. Bishop Hooper observes%, out of 
Tertullian’, “‘ That except Friday and Saturday before Easter, 
the Catholics, in his time, kept no other days of fasting in 
Lent, but only at discretion; and that their fast was, for the 
most part, private, and not distinguished by any public action. 
And Bishop Taylor asserts the same, not only out of Tertullian, 
but Socrates, Prudentius, Victor Antiochenus, Prosper, and 
St. Austin’: “For the fasts of the Church were arbitrary, and 


4 Hooper’s Discourse of Lent, p. 64. 

τ Tertul. de Jejun. ¢.ii. (Paris. 1664. p. 544, C.) Certe in Evangelio illos dies 
jejuniis determinatos putant [physici, h. e. Catholici], in quibus ablatus est 
sponsus; et hos esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum Christianorum, abolitis 
legalibus et propheticis vetustatibus. Cap. xiii, (p. 551, B 8.) Eece convenio 
vos et preeter Pascha jejunantes, citra illos dies, quibus ablatus est sponsus, et 
stationum semijejunia interponentes, et vero interdum pane et aqua victitantes, 
ut cuique visum est: denique respondetis heee ex arbitrio agenda, non ex 
imperio. 

8 Taylor, Duct. Dub. lib. iii. ¢. iv. (Lond. 1828. vol. xiv. p. 32.) This first 
appears in that we find it affirmed often in antiquity, that the fasts of the 
Church were arbitrary, and chosen without necessity and imposition from any 
authority, which thing was observed by Socrates (lib. v. ὁ. xxii.), speaking of 
the Lent-fast: ‘ Quoniam nemo scriptum de hae re preeceptum proferre potest, 
apparet apostolos arbitrio cujusque hac voluntati id permisisse, ut unusquis- 
que quod bonum est, sua sponte, non metu ac necessitate, perageret.’ * Sie 
abstinere, vel jejunare debemus,’ saith Prosper (de Vita Contempl. lib. ii. 
c. xxiv.) ut non nos jejunandi vel abstinendi necessitati subdamus: ne jam non 





Cnap. 1. ὃ 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 907 


chosen without necessity and imposition from any authority.” 
He means not only the imposition of apostolical or Divine 
authority upon the Church in general, but the imposition of 
them by any authority of the Church upon her own members, 
as laying any necessary obligation on them. And this is true 
of the three or four first ages of the Church, but more ques- 
tionable of those that followed after. For the fourth Council 


devoti, sed inviti rem voluntariam faciamus. But of this we have elder testi- 
mony; for when Tertullian scraped together all that he could to justify the 
Lents of Montanus, the new fasts, which he for discipline would have had the 
Churches for ever to observe; he laid hold upon the practice of the Catholics 
to verify Montanus’s imposition, saying, that the Catholic bishops did enjoin 
fasts sometimes, ‘ et ex aliqua sollicitudinis ecclesiasticee causa,’ upon the occa- 
sion of some trouble or affliction in the Church, that is, temporary fasts, or 
solemn days upon special emergent accidents. He adds also, that they kept 
the Paschal fast, the two days before Easter, in which the Bridegroom was 
taken from them; but in these days they sometimes live on bread and water, 
ut cuique videbatur, et hee ex arbitrio agentes et non ex imperio τ᾿ they did 
this not by any command, but by choice, as they pleased themselves: for so 
the Catholics did say and believe, ‘sie et apostolos observasse, nullum aliud 
imponentes jugum certorum et in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum ἢ 
(cap. ii.); that the apostles did fast as every Christian else did, and ought to do, 
‘ ex arbitrio, pro temporibus et causis uniuscujusque,’ as every one had cause, 
and opportunity, and will; but they imposed no other yoke of certain, and for 
ever to be observed fasts. 

Laxus ac liber modus abstinendi 

Ponitur cunctis: neque nos severus 

Terror impellit: sua quemque cogit 

Velle potestas. 

Sufficit, quicquid facias, vocato 

Numinis nutu prius, inchoare, 

Sive tu mensam [renuas] renoves, cibumve 

Sumere tentes. (Valpy, vol. i. p. 122.) 

So Prudentius (Cathemer. Hymn. viii.) expressly affirming, that even in his 
time there were no laws of set and annual fasts: for that very thing Victor 
Antiochenus (in Mare. cap. ii.) makes to be a difference between the Old and 
New Testament: for the faithful in that time had fasting days appointed by 
God, ‘ quae proinde modis omnibus explere obligabantur, etiamsi alias noluis- 
sent,’ which they were bound by all means to observe, though against their 
will; but under the Gospel, we fast by the love of virtue, and the choice of our 
own will, rather than by the co-action of any law. For, “ quibus diebus jejunan- 
dum sit, nullo apostolorum preecepto definitum reperiri,’ said St. Austin (Epist. 
Ixviii. ad Casulanum); What days we are to fast, is nowhere to be found deter- 
mined by any precept of the apostles. 


208 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


of Orleans orders‘, “ That all who refused to fast on Saturday 
in Lent should be made liable to ecclesiastical censure.” And 
among those called the Apostolical Canons, there is one that 
orders", “ That every clergyman, who, not being infirm, refuses 
to fast in Lent, shall be deposed ; and laymen to be suspended 
from communion for the same transgression.” But this is one 
of those canons which are known to be of later date, and 
therefore cannot be concluded to be according to the ancient 
rule of the Church. 


Sect. XV.—How the Montanists differed from the Church 
about the Imposition of Fasts. 


From this it will be easy to account for the difference which 
happened between the Church and the Montanists about the 


Ὁ Cone. Aurel. IV. an. 541. ¢. ii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 382.) Ut Quadragesima 
ab omnibus ecclesiis zequaliter teneatur; ... neque per Sabbata absque infirmi- 
tate quisquam solvat Quadragesimz jejunium, nisi tantum die Dominico pran- 
deat ; quod sie fieri specialiter patrum statuta sanxerunt. Si quis hane regulam 
irruperit, tamquam transgressor disciplinze a sacerdotibus censeatur. 

ἃ Can. Apost. lxix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 10.) Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, 
ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ἀναγνώστης, ἢ ψάλτης. τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστὴν, τοῦ πάσχα, 
ἢ τετράδα, ἢ παρασκευὴν, οὐ νηστεύοι, καθαιρείσθω: ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ Ov’ ἀσθέ- 
γνειαν σωματικὴν ἐμποδίζοιτο' ἐὰν δὲ λαϊκὸς ἢ, ἀφοριζέσθω. See also 
Cone. Tolet. VIII. ¢. ix. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 407.) Novze intentionis admonitu 
detecta est ingluvies horrenda voracium, quee dum frzeno parsimoniz non ad- 
stringitur, religioni contraria censetur. Nam dicente Scriptura, ‘Qui spernit 
minima, paullatim decidet in maxima’ illi tanto(@) edacitatis improbe(itate) 
sumptu grassantur, ut coelestia et pene summa contemnere videantur. Etenim 
quum Quadragesimze dies anni totius decimze deputentur, quee in oblatione je- 
Junii Domini(0) consecrantur, quibus etiam saluberrime conditio humani generis 
expiatur, dum a quatuor mundi partibus ad hane homo religionem crediturus 
adducitur ; quatuor elementis formatus, propter transgressionem Decalogi 
quater decies convenienter adfligitur: illi ausu temerario hee omnia contem- 
nentes, voracitatis ingluviem non freenant, et (quod pejus est) Paschalia festa 
illicitorum esuum pree(per)ceptione profanant. Quibus ex hoe adeo acerrime 
interdicitur, ut quisquis absque inevitabili necessitate, atque fragilitatis evidenti 
languore, seu etiam zetatis impossibilitate, diebus Quadragesimze esum carnium 
preesumserit attentare, non solum reus erit resurrectionis Dominicze, verum 
etiam alienus ab ejusdem diei sancta communione. Et hoe illi cumuletur ad 
penam, ut ipsius anni tempore ab omni esu carnium abstineat gulam: quia 
sacris diebus abstinentize oblitus est disciplinam. Ii vero, quos aut zetas in- 
curvat, aut languor extenuat, aut necessitas arctat, non ante prohibita violare 
preesumant, quam a sacerdote permissum accipiant. 





Cuap. 1. § 15. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 209 


imposition of fasts. Montanus is condemned by the writers of 
that age, for making new laws about fasting. In the fragment 
of Apollonius, mentioned by Eusebius*, it is laid to his charge, 
that he was the first 6 νηστείας νομοθετήσας, ‘who imposed 
fastings by his laws.’ Which some understand as if he was 
the first that ever brought fasting under any rule or law. 
Which cannot be true: for, as we have seen before. the Church 
also thought she had a rule for fasting two days before aster ; 
and Tertullian also, in vindication of Montanus, tells the Catho- 
lies (which they themselves did not deny), that their bishops 
were used to appoint fasts upon necessary occasions of the 
Church’. Therefore this could not be the dispute then, 
Whether fasting might be imposed by a law: but the Montanists 
said, beside the fast of Lent observed by the Catholics, there 
were other fasts imposed by the Spirit, under the ministry 
and revelation of the will of God made to Montanus. or the 
Montanists kept three Lents” in the year, each of these two 
weeks ; and that upon dry meats, in perfect abstinence from 
flesh ; and these also, as necessary to be observed, as injunctions 
of the Spirit by the new revelation made to Montanus, which 
they preferred before the writings of the apostles, and said 
these laws were to be observed for ever: which is the reason 
why the Montanists, in the time of Sozomen, kept their ante- 
Paschal fast still confined to two weeks, when the Catholics 
fasted a much longer space. For, as a learned person ob- 
serves*, “Those great fasters would hardly have been left 


x Euseb. lib. v. ὁ. xviii. (Reading, 1720. p. 233, 38.) Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ διδάξας 
λύσεις γάμων" ὁ νηστείας νομοθετήσας. 

y Tertul. de Jejuniis, ¢. xiii. (Paris. 1664. p. 551, C 4.) Bene autem, quod et 
episcopi universe plebi mandare jejunia assolent; non dico de industria sti- 
pium conferendarum, ut vestree capturee est; sed interdum et ex aliqua sollici- 
tudinis ecclesiasticze causa. 

z Hieron. Epist. liv. ad Marcellam. (See note (m), p. 199.) Nos unam qua- 
dragesimam ... jejunamus, illi tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas. Id. 
Commentar. in Hagg. ο. i. (Vallars. Veron. 1734. vol. vi. p. 750, A 4.) Qui 
tribus quadragesimis per annum jejunantes, et ἕηροφαγίοις humiliantes animam 
suam, ete. Tertul. de Jejun. ce. xv. (Paris. 1664, p. 552, C 10.) Quantula est 
apud nos interdictio ciborum? duas in anno hebdomadas xerophagiarum, nec 
totas, exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis, offerimus Deo; abstinentes ab eis, 
quee non rejicimus, sed differimus. 

ἃ Hooper, Of Lent, p. 65. 

VOL. VII. Ῥ 








210 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΙ. 


behind, had not those two weeks been the space determined 
them by their prophet, and they obliged to keep punctually to 
all his institutions.” This, then, was the great dispute between 
the Catholics and the Montanists, “‘ Whether the Spirit had 
appointed these fasts?” which the Montanists asserted, and 
the Catholics denied. And, therefore, though the Church 
augmented her fast from two days to forty, yet still she did it 
with a great deal of liberty reserved to every particular Church; 
and every particular Church, in a great measure, left all her 
members to judge of their own abilities by Christian prudence 
and discretion: exhorting men to fast, but imposing rigidly 
upon none more than they were able and willing to bear, nor 
enforcing it under pain of ecclesiastical censure. 


Sect. XVI.—The Lent-Fast kept with a perfect Abstinence 
From all Food every Day till Hvening. 


The manner of observing Lent among those that were 
piously disposed to observe it, was to abstain from all food till 
evening. For anciently a change of diet was not reckoned a 
fast ; but it consisted in a perfect abstinence from all sustenance 
for the whole day, till evening; and in this the Lent-fast 
differed from the ‘semijejunia,’ or ‘ half-fasts’ of the ordinary 
stationary days, as we shall see hereafter. St. Ambrose, speak- 
ing of the Lent-fast, says®, “It was a total abstinence every - 
day throughout the whole season, except on the Sabbath and 
the Lord’s-day.”. And, in another place, exhorting men° to 
observe the Lent-fast, he bids them “‘ defer eating a little ; the 
end of the day is not far off.” So Chrysostom frequently, in 
his Lent sermons, speaks of the same circumstance. “ Let 
us set a guard? upon our ears, our tongues, and minds, and 


b Ambros. de Elia et Jejunio. See p. 62. note (t). 

¢ Thid. Serm. viii. in Psalm. exviii. (Paris. 1836. vol. 11. p. 288.) Differ ali- 
quantulum, non longe finis est diei. 

ἃ Chrysostom. Hom, iy. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 29, C 10.) Τὴν 
δὲ διάνοιαν παιδεύωμεν μηδὲν προΐεσθαι τῶν βλαβερῶν: ἀλλὰ κἂν ἔξωθεν 
τι ἐπεισφέρηται τοιοῦτο, ταῦτα ὡς περιττὰ καὶ βλάπτειν δυνάμενα ἀποσείεσ- 
θαι, κἂν ἔνδοθεν τίκτηται, ταχέως αὐτὰ φυγαδεύειν τῷ εὐσεβεῖ λογισμῷ, καὶ 
μὴ νομίζωμεν τὴν ἀσιτίαν μόνον τὴν μέχρι τῆς ἑσπέρας ἀρκεῖν ἡμῖν πρὸς 


σωτηρίαν. 


Crap. 1. 8 16. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. O11 
not think that bare fasting till the evening is sufficient for our 
salvation.” —‘“ What profit® is it to fast, and eat nothing all 
the day, if you give yourself to playing at dice, and other vain 
pastimes, and spend the whole day many times in perjuries and 
blasphemies ?””—“ The true fast is abstinence‘ from vices: for 
abstinence from meat was appointed upon this occasion, that 
we should curb the tone of our flesh, and make the horse obe- 
dient to his rider. He that fasts, ought, above all things, to 
bridle his anger, to learn meekness and clemency, to have a 
contrite heart, to banish the thoughts of all inordinate desires, 
to set the watchful eye of God before his eyes, and his uncor- 
rupted judgment; to set himself above riches, and exercise 
ereat liberality in giving of alms; and to expel every evil 
thought against his neighbour out of his soul. This is the true 
fast. Therefore let this be our care: and let us not imagine, 
as many do, that we have fasted rightly, when we have 
abstained from eating until evening. This is not the thing 
required of us; but that, together with our abstinence from 
meat, we should abstain from those things that hurt the soul, 
and diligently exercise ourselves in things of a spiritual nature.” 
Bellarmine’ himself shows the same out of St. Basil®, and 


e [bid. Hom. vi. in Genes. (p. 48, A 6.) Τί γὰρ ὄφελος, εἰπέ μοι, τῆς 
νηστείας, ὅταν ἄσιτος μὲν διημερεύης, κύβοις δὲ ἑαυτὸν ἐκδιδῷς, καὶ φλυα- 
ρίαις ἀνονήτοις; πολλάκις δὲ ἐπιορκίαις καὶ βλασφημίαις πᾶσαν ἀναλώσῃς 
τὴν ἡμέραν ; 

f Ibid. Hom. viii. in Genes. (p. 62, E 6.) Πᾶσα ἡμῶν ἡ φροντὶς ἔστω περὶ 
τῆς κατὰ ψυχὴν σωτηρίας, καὶ ὕπως δυνηθείημεν τὰ σκιρτήματα τῆς σαρκὸς 
χαλινώσαντες τὴν ἀληθινὴν νηστείαν ἐπιδείξασθαι, λέγω On τὴν τῶν κακῶν 
ἀποχήν: τοῦτο γὰρ νηστεία. καὶ γὰρ ἡ βρωμάτων ἀποχὴ διὰ τοῦτο παρεί- 
ληπται, ἵνα τὸν τόνον τῆς σαρκὸς χαλινώσῃ, καὶ εὐήνιον ἡμῶν τὸν ἵππον 
ἐργάσηται: τὸν νηστεύοντα μάλιστα πάντων προσήκει τὸν θυμὸν χαλινοῦν, 
πρᾳότητα πεπαιδεῦσθαι, καὶ ἐπιείκειαν, συντετριμμένην ἔχειν τὴν καρδίαν, 
τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἀτόπων ἐξορίζειν τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις, πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν λαμβάνοντα 
τὸν ἀκοίμητον ὀφθαλμὸν, καὶ τὸ κριτήριον τὸ ἀδίκαστον, χρήματων κρείτ- 
τονα γίνεσθαι, περὶ τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην πολλὴν τὴν δαψίλειαν ἐπιδείκνυσθαι 
πᾶσαν κακίαν τὴν περὶ τὸν πλησίον ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπελαύνειν. αὕτη 
ἀληθὴς ἡ νηστεία... ταύτην ἀσκήσωμεν, καὶ μὴ ἁπλῶς κατὰ τοὺς πολ- 
λοὺς νομίζωμεν, ἐν τούτῳ τὰ τῆς νηστείας ἡμῖν περιορίζεσθαι, ἐὰν μεχρὶ 
τῆς ἑσπέρας ἄσιτοι διαμείνωμεν. οὐ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ζητούμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 
μετὰ τῆς τῶν βρωμάτων ἀποχῆς καὶ τὴν ἀποχὴν τῶν βλαπτόντων 
ἐπιδειξώμεθα, καὶ περὶ τὴν τῶν πνευματικῶν ἐργασίαν πολλὴν σπουδὴν 
ποιησώμεθα. 

ς Bellarmin. tom. iv. de Bonis Oper. lib. ii. ¢. ii. Sanctus Basilius oratione 


p 2 


212 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


other ancient writers, who speak always of the Lent-fast as a 
perfect abstinence from all food till evening. And it is very 
remarkable, by what he cites out of Micrologus, Gratian, and 
St. Bernard, that this custom continued till the twelfth cen- 
tury, even in the practice of the Romish Church. 


Srecr. X VII.—Change of Diet not accounted a proper Fast for 
Lent, without perfect Abstinence till Evening. 


Whence it were easy to conclude, that the pretence of 
keeping Lent only by change of diet from flesh to fish, or a 
more delicious food, which allows men the use of wine, and 
other delicacies, is but a mock fast, and a mere innovation, 
utterly unknown to the ancients, whose Lent-fast was a strict 
and rigorous abstinence from all food till the evening. Their 
refreshment was only a supper, and not a dinner of any kind: 
and then it was indifferent, whether it was flesh or any other 
food, provided it was used, as became the refreshment of a 
fast, with sobriety and moderation. They generally, indeed, 
abstained from flesh, and wine, and fish, and all other deli- 
cacies, at this season; but yet there was no such universal 
rule, or custom in this matter, but that when men had fasted 
all the day, they were allowed to refresh themselves with a 
moderate supper upon flesh, or any other food, without dis- 
tinction. This appears from the observation which Socrates 
makes upon the different manner of fasting in Lent : “Some,” 
says he’, “abstain from all kind of living creatures ; others 
abstain from all but fish; others eat fowls as well as fish, 
saying, that, according to Moses, they come of the water ; 
others abstain from fruits and eggs ; others eat only dry bread ; 
and others eyen not so much as that:” yet the greatest asce- 
tics made no scruple to eat flesh in Lent, when a just occasion 
required it. Sozomen tells a remarkable story of Spyridion, 


prima de jejunio, de Quadragesima loquens, ‘ Exspectas,’ inquit, ‘vesperam, ut 
cibum capias, sed diem totum absumis apud tribunalia,’ ete. 

h Basil. Hom. i. de Jejun. (Bened. Paris. 1721. vol. ii. Ρ. 9, Β 8.) Τὴν 
ἑσπέραν ἀναμείνεις εἰς μετάληψιν, ἀλλὰ δαπανᾷς τὴν ἡμέραν εἰς δικασ- 
τήρια. 

1 Socrat. See sect. iii. note (r), p. 182. 


Crap. 1. § 17. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 915 


bishop of Trimythus, in Cyprus*, “That a stranger once hap- 
pening to call upon him, in his travels in Lent, he having 
nothing in his house but a piece of pork, ordered that to be 
dressed and set before him: but the stranger refusing to eat 
flesh, saying, ‘He was a Christian,’ Spyridion replied, ‘ For 
that very reason thou oughtest not to refuse it ; for the word 
of God has pronounced all things clean to them that are 
clean.” Eusebius! tells a like story of one Alcibiades, a 
martyr, who, being a great ascetic, had used to abstain from 
flesh all his life, and live only upon bread and water, which 
course of life he continued even in prison; but it was revealed 
to Attalus, one of his fellow-prisoners, that Alcibiades did not 
well to refuse using the creatures of God, and thereby give 
scandal to others. Upon which admonition, Alcibiades changed 
his manner of living, and began to use all meats indifferently, 
with thanksgiving.— By this it appears, that the eating or not 
eating of flesh was a thing indifferent to them at all times ; 
and that they made no scruple to eat flesh even in Lent, upon 
a necessary occasion, without any prejudice to their rules of 
fasting. But the thing they chiefly guarded against was 
luxury, and pampering the body, under pretence of fasting. 


k Sozomen. lib. i. c. xi, (Reading, p. 24, 10.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1790. p. 340, 
B 11.) Ἤδη τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς ἐνστάσης, ἧκέ τις πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξ ὁδοιπορίας, 
ἐν αἷς εἰώθει μετὰ τῶν οἰκείων ἐπισυνάπτειν τὴν νηστείαν, καὶ εἰς ῥητὴν 
ἡμέραν γεύεσθαι, ἄσιτος τὰς ἐν μέσῳ διαμένων" ἰδὼν δὲ τὸν ἕένον μάλα 
κεκμηκότα, "Aye δὴ, πρὸς τὴν θυγατέρα ἔφη, ὕπως τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τοὺς πόδας 
νίψῃς, καὶ φαγεῖν αὐτῷ παράθες" εἰπούσης δὲ τῆς παρθένου, μή τε ἄρτον 
εἶναι, μήτε ἄλφιτα: περιττὴ γὰρ ἡ τούτων παρασκευὴ διὰ τὴν νηστείαν" 
δεξάμενος πρότερον καὶ συγγνώμην αἰτήσας, ἐκέλευσε τῇ θυγατρὶ, κρέα ὕεια 
ἅπερ ἔτυχε τῇ οἰκίᾳ τεταριχευμένα ἑψεῖν' ἐπεὶ δὲ ἥψητο, καθίσας ἵμα αὐτῷ 
τὸν ξένον, παρατεθέντων τῶν κρεῶν ἤσθιε, καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα παρεκάλει αὐτὸν 
μιμεῖσθαι: παραιτούμενον δὲ, λέγοντα Χριστιανὸν ἑαυτὸν, Ταύτῃ μᾶλλον, 
ἔφη, οὐ παραιτητέον᾽ πάντα γὰρ καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς ὁ θεῖος ἀπεφήνατο 
λόγος. 

1 Euseb. lib. v. 6. iii. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 136, B 4.) (Reading, 1720. 
p- 212.) ᾿Αλκιβιάδου yap τινος ἐξ αὐτῶν, πάνυ αὐχμηρὸν βιοῦντος βίον, 
καὶ μηδενὸς ὕλως τὸ πρότερον μεταλαμβάνοντος, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ καὶ 
ὕδατι χρωμένου, πειρωμένου τε καὶ ἐν τῇ εἱρκτῇ οὕτω διάγειν, ᾿Αττάλῳ 
μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον ἀγῶνα, ὃν ἐν τῷ ἀμφιθεάτρῳ ἤνυσεν, ἀπεκαλύφθη, OTe μὴ 
καλῶς ποιοίη ὁ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, μὴ χρώμενος τοῖς κτίσμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ 
ἄλλοις τύπον σκανδάλου ὑπολειπόμενος" πεισθεὶς δὲ ᾿Αλκιβιάδης, πάντων 
ἀνέδην μετελάμβανε, καὶ ηὐχαρίστει τῷ Θεῷ. 


214 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


St. Austin makes a smart reflection in one of his sermons, 
upon such pretenders as these™: ‘There are some observers 
of Lent,” says he, ‘‘that study deliciousness more than reli- 
gion, and seek out new pleasures for the belly, more than how 
to chastise the concupiscence of the old man ; who, by costly 
and plentiful provisions, strive to outdo the varieties and tastes 
of the several fruits of the earth. They are afraid of any 
vessels in which flesh has been boiled, as if they were unclean ; 
and yet in their own flesh, fear not the luxury of the throat 
and the belly. These men fast, not to diminish their wonted 
voracity by temperance, but, by deferring a meal, to increase 
their immoderate greediness: for when the time of refresh- 
ment comes, they rush to their plentiful tables as beasts to 
their mangers, and stuff their bellies with great variety of 
artificial and strange sauces, taking in more by devouring than 
they are able to digest again by fasting. There are some, 
likewise, who drink no wine, that they may provide themselves 
other more agreeable liquors, to gratify their taste, rather 
than set forward their. salvation: as if Lent were intended, 
not for the observation of a pious humiliation, but as an occa- 
sion of seeking out new pleasures.” They did not think éom- 
mutation of diet a proper fast, if the abstinence of the day was 
spoiled by any immoderate indulgence of an evening banquet : 
much less did they esteem it a fast to dine upon delicacies, and 
use a mere abstinence from flesh, without deferring the time of 
their ordinary meal till evening; but they abstained all the 


m Aug. Serm. Ixxiv. de Diversis. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. p. 648, Ὁ 3.) Sunt 
quidam observatores Quadragesimee deliciosi potius quam religiosi, exquirentes 
novas suavitates magis quam veteres concupiscentias castigantes; qui copiosis 
pretiosisque apparatibus fructuum diyersorum, quorumlibet obsoniorum varie- 
tates et sapores superare contendunt: vasa, in quibus cocte sunt carnes, tam- 
quam immunda formidant, et in sua carne ventris et gutturis luxuriam non 
formidant: jejunant, non ut solitam temperando minuant edacitatem, sed ut 
immoderatam differendo augeant aviditatem. Nam ubi tempus reficiendi 
advenerit, opimis mensis, tamquam pecora preesepibus, irruunt ; numerosioribus 
ferculis corda obruunt, ventresque distendunt ; artificiosis et peregrinis condi- 
mentorum diversitatibus gulam, ne vel copia compescatur, irritant. Denique 
tantum capiunt manducando, quantum digerere non sufficiant jejunando. Sunt 
etiam qui vinum ita non bibunt, ut aliorum expressione pomorum alios sibi 
liquores, non salutis causa, sed jucunditatis, exquirant: tamquam non sift 
Quadragesima pize humilitatis observatio, sed novee voluptatis oceasio. 


ὕπαρ. 1. § 18. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. I15 


day from food of any kind, and then contented themselves with 
a sober and plain refreshment in the close of it, without any 
scrupulous nicety about the kind of their food, so long as they 
used it only with temperance and moderation. 


Secr. X VIII.— What they spared in a Dinner, not spent in 
Evening Luxury, but bestowed on the Poor. 


And what they thus spared from their own bodies in 
abridging them of a meal, they that were piously disposed, 
bestowed upon the bellies of the poor. This we learn from 
one of the homilies of Ceesarius Arelatensis, or whoever was 
the author of it, under the name of St. Austin: ‘ Before all 
things,” says he, ‘on our fasting-days, what we were used to 
spend upon a dinner, let us bestow upon the poor, that no one 
concern himself about providing a sumptuous supper, or an 
exquisite and delicious feast, and seem rather to have changed 
the diet of his body than diminished any thing in the quantity 
of it. There is no profit in keeping a long fast all the day, if 
afterward a man overwhelm his soul either with the delicacy of 
his meat, or the abundance of it.” That which is gained by 
the fast at dinner, ought not to be turned into a feast at 
supper, but be expended on the bellies of the poor. “ Pro- 
ficiat eleemosynis, quod non impenditur mensis,” says Leo°; 
“That which is not expended upon our tables, should be laid 
out in alms; and then it will bring us in great gain.” Origen 
says’, “He found it in some book, as a noted saying of the 
apostles, ‘ Blessed is he who fasts for this end, that he may 


n Aug. Serm. lvi. de Tempore. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. append. p. 177, A.) 
Ante omnia in diebus jejuniorum, quod solebamus prandere, pauperibus eroge- 
mus; ne forte aliquis 5101 sumtuosas coenas et exquisitis saporibus epulas 
studeat przeparare, et corpori suo magis commutasse quam subtraxisse ciborum 
abundantiam videatur. Nihil prodest tota die longum duxisse jejunium, si 
postea ciborum suavitate vel nimietate anima obruatur. 

© Leo, Serm. iii, de Jejun. Pentecost. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 319.) (Lugd. 
1700. p. 162.) Proficiat eleemosynis, quod non impenditur mensis. Tune enim 
demum ad animze curationem proficit medicina jejunii, quum abstinentia jeju- 
nantis esuriem reficit indigentis. 

P Origen. Hom. x. in Levitic. (Bened. Paris. 1733. vol. ii. p. 246, A 2.) 
‘Beatus est, qui etiam jejunat pro eo, ut alat pauperem.’ Hujus jejunium 
valde acceptum est apud Deum, 


216 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book ΧΧΙ. 


feed the poor: this man’s fast is acceptable unto God.” 
“* Mercy and piety,” as Chrysologus words it‘, “are the wings 
of fasting, by which it mounts up to heaven, without which it 
lies dead upon the earth: therefore when we fast, let us lay up 
our dinner in the hands of the poor, that the hands of the poor 
may preserve for us what our bellies would destroy. The 
hand of the poor is the treasury of Christ: fasting without 
mercy, is but an image of famine: fasting without works of 
piety, is only an occasion of covetousness ; because, by such 
sparing, what is taken from the body, only swells in the 
purse.” 


Sect. XIX.—A// Corporeal Punishments forbidden by the 
Imperial Laws, in Lent. 


Therefore Lent was thought the proper season for exer- 
cising more abundantly all sorts of charity. “Ποῦ us spend 
those vacant hours,” says Ceesarius or St. Austin’, “ which we 
were used to lavish away without any benefit to our souls, now 
in visiting the sick, in searching the prisons, in entertaining 
strangers, in reconciling those that are at variance with one 
another.” This was required of those, more especially, who 
pretended bodily infirmity, that they could not fast, as we have 
heard before out of St. Chrysostom’: ‘Thou canst not fast 
by reason of the weakness of thy body: but why art thou not 
reconciled to thy enemy! Canst thou pretend bodily infirmity 
here? If thou retainest hatred and envy, what apology canst 


4 Chrysol. Serm. viii. de Jejunio et Eleemosyna. (Aug. Vind. 1758. p. 13, 
at bottom.) Misericordia et pietas jejunii sunt alee, per quas tollitur et portatur 
ad ccelum, sine quibus jacet et volutatur in terra. Jejunium sine misericordia 
simulacrum famis est, imago nulla est sanctitatis: sine pietate jejunium occasio 
est avaritize: quia parcitas ista, quantum siccatur in corpore, tantum tumescit 
in sacculo. Jejunantes ergo prandium nostrum reponamus in manu pauperis, 
quod venter nobis fuerat perditurus. Manus pauperis est gazophylacium 
Christi: quia, quidquid pauper accipit, Christus acceptat. 

τ Aug. Hom. lvi. de Tempore. (Bened. 1700. vol. ν. append. p. 176, F 12.) 
Horarum spatiis, in quibus solebamus cum damno animee detineri, visitentur 
infirmi, requirantur in carcere constituti, peregrini suscipiantur, et discordes ad 
concordiam revocentur. 

5. Chrysostom. Hom. xxii. de Ira. See sect. xiv. note (0), p. 203. Et Hom. 
x. in Genes. See sect. xiv. note (p), p. 203. 


Cuap. 1. $19. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. O17 


thou make? In such crimes as these, thou canst not take 
sanctuary in bodily weakness. He that cannot fast, let him 
give the more plentiful alms: let him be reconciled to his 
enemies, let him forget injuries, and cast all thoughts of re- 
venge out of his mind.” This was a time when men expected 
merey and pardon from God: and therefore it was the more 
reasonable they should be more eminent in the exercise of 
mercy towards their brethren. Upon this account, the im- 
perial laws forbade all prosecution of men in criminal actions, 
which might bring them to corporeal punishment and torture, 
during the whole season. Theodosius the Great made two 
laws to this purposet: “In the forty days which, by the laws 
of religion, are solemnly observed before Haster, let the exa- 
mination and hearing of all criminal questions be superseded : 
and in the holydays of Lent, let there be* no punishments of 
the body, when we expect the absolution of our souls.” St. 
Ambrose® mentions a like answer given by the younger Valen- 
tinian, in the case of some rich noblemen, who were prosecuted 
in a criminal cause before the provost of the city, who inclined 
to give a speedy sentence against them ; but the emperor sent 
him an inhibition, forbidding any sentence of blood to be pro- 
nounced during the holy season. Nor was there any exception 
made to this rule, but only in the case of the Isaurian robbers, 
whose practices were so very dangerous to the common safety, 
that Theodosius Junior thought it proper to allow their exa- 
mination by scourging and the rack at any time, not excepting 
any day in Lent’, or the Easter festival ; because it was 


t Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxxv. de Queestionibus, leg. iv. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iii. 
p. 252.) Quadraginta diebus, qui auspicio czerimoniarum Paschale tempus 
anticipant, omnis cognitio inhibeatur eriminalium quzestionum. 

u Thid. leg. v. (p. 253.) Sacratis Quadragesime diebus nulla supplicia sint 
corporis, quibus absolutio exspectatur animarum. 

x Ambros. de Obitu Valentin. (Paris. 1836. vol. iv. p. 180.) (Paris. 1642. 
vol. v. p. 108.) Quid de pietate ejus loquar ? qui quum homines nobili ortos 
genere et locupleti prosapia, quee cito movere invidiam solet, regize cupiditatis 
accusator urgeret, preefectus insisteret 5 respondit, ut nihil cruentum sanctis 
preesertim diebus statueretur. 

Υ Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxxv. de Queestionibus, leg. vii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. ill. 
p- 255.) Provinciarum judices moneantur, ut in Isaurorum latronum qtes- 
tionibus nullum Quadragesimze, nec venerabilem Pascharum diem existiment 
excipiendum, ete. 


918 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


greater charity to discover their wicked counsels and con- 
spiracies, to preserve the life and safety of other innocent 
men, than to grant any reprieve or respite to such criminals 
upon the account of the holy season. So that merey and 
charity was still the thing in view, as most proper to be showed 
to the bodies of men at such a season, ‘ when all expected, by 
their fasting and repentance, to obtain absolution of their souls 
from the hands of God,’.as one of the forementioned laws ele- 
gantly words it. 


Secr, XX.—Religious Assemblies and Sermons every Day in 
Lent. 


Lent was a time of more than ordinary strictness and devo- 
tion; and therefore, in many of the great churches, they had 
religious assemblies for prayer and preaching every day 
throughout the whole season. I cannot affirm that it was so 
in every parochial church and country village ; but that it was 
so in the greater, or cathedral churches, is evident from unde- 
niable proofs and matter of fact. Chrysostom’s Homilies on 
Genesis, and those famous ones of the Statues, called ἀνδριάντες, 
to the people of Antioch, were sermons preached after this 
manner, day after day, in the Lent season, as any one may be 
satisfied that looks but into them. I will only relate one 
single passage in one of these homilies’, which will give any 


2 Chrysostom. Hom. xi. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 85, Ὁ 3.) Οὐδὲ 
yap τοῦτο μόνον ἐστὶ τὸ ζητούμενον, iva καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐνταῦθα 
παραγινώμεθα, καὶ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν συνεχῶς ἀκούωμεν, καὶ τὴν τεσσαρακοσ- 
τὴν πᾶσαν νηστεύοντες ὦμεν. Et γὰρ μὴ μέλλοιμέν τι κερδαίνειν ἐκ τῆς 
ἐνταῦθα συνεχοῦς ἐλεύσεώς τε καὶ παραινέσεως, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς νηστείας 
καιροῦ προσφέρειν τι τῶν χρησίμων εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν ψυχὴν, ταῦτα οὐ μόνον 
ἡμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει, ἀλλὰ καὶ μείζονος ἡμῖν κατακρίσεως ἀφορμὴ γενήσε- 
ται, ὅταν τοσαύτης ἐπιμελείας ἀπολαύοντες, οἱ αὐτοὶ διαμένωμεν, καὶ μήτε 
ὁ ὀργίλος ἐπιεικὴς γίνηται, μήτε ὁ θυμώδης εἰς πρᾳότητα μεταβάλλοιτο, 
μήτε ὁ βάσκανος εἰς φιλοφροσύνην ἑαυτὸν ἐναγάγῃ, μήτε ὁ περὶ τὰ χρήματα 
μεμηνὼς, ἀποστὰς τοῦ πάθους πρὸς ἐλεημοσύνην ἑαυτὸν παρασκευάσῃ καὶ 
τὴν τῶν πενήτων διατροφὴν, μήτε ὁ ἀκόλαστος σώφρων γένοιτο, μήτε ὁ 
περὶ τὴν κενὴν ταύτην δόξαν ἐπτοημένος, μάθῃ ταύτης ὑπερορᾷν, καὶ τῆς 
ἀληθοῦς ἐφίεσθαι δόξης, μήτε ὁ περὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν περὶ τὸν πλησίον 
ῥᾷάθυμος, διαναστήσας αὐτὸν παιδεύσῃ, μὴ μόνον τῶν τελωνῶν μὴ εἶναι 
ἐλάττων. ᾿Βὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, φησι, τί περισσὸν 
ποιεῖτε : οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν ; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα παρασκευάζῃ 


Cuap. I. § 21. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 919 


oa 


reader satisfaction. ‘“ This is not,” says he, “the only thing 
that is required, that we should meet here every day, and hear 
sermons continually, and fast the whole Lent; for if we gain 
nothing by these continual meetings, and exhortations, and 
season of fasting, to the advantage of our souls, they will not 
only do us no good, but be the occasion of a severer condem- 
nation. If, after so much care and pains bestowed upon us, we 
continue the same; if the angry man does not become meek, 
and the passionate mild and gentle; if the envious does not 
reduce himself to a friendly temper, nor the covetous man de- 
part from his madness and fury in the pursuit of riches, and 
give himself to alms-deeds and feeding the poor; if the intem- 
perate man does not become chaste and sober, and the vain- 
glorious learn to despise false honour, and seek for that which 
is true; if he that is negligent of charity to his neighbour, does 
not stir up himself, and endeavour not only not to come be- 
hind the publicans (who love those that love them), but also to 
look friendly upon his enemies, and exercise all acts of charity 
toward them; if we do not conquer these affections, and all 
others that spring up from our natural corruption ; though we 
assemble here every day, and enjoy continual preaching and 
teaching, and have the assistance of fasting; what pardon can 
we expect, what apology shall we make for ourselves?” By this 
it is plain, no day passed in Lent without a sermon to put men 
in mind of the great duties of Christianity, and reformation, 
and repentance, which were more peculiar to the design of that 
holy season. 


πον. XXI.—And frequent Communions, especially on the 
Sabbath and Lord’s-Day. 


They had also frequent communions at this time, at least on 
every Sabbath and Lord’s-day. For though the festivals of 
martyrs were not ordinarily to be celebrated in this time of 


αὐτοῦ τὸν λογισμὸν, Kai τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἡμέρως ὁρᾷν, καὶ πολλὴν περὶ 
αὐτοὺς τὴν ἀγάπην ἐπιδείκνυσθαι: ἐὰν μὴ τούτων περιγενοίμεθα τῶν παθῶν, 
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν τικτομένων, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἐνταῦθ᾽ παραγινό- 
μενοι, καὶ συνεχοῦς ἀκροάσεως ἀπολαύοντες, καὶ τοσαύτης διδασκαλίας 
μετέχοντες, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς νηστείας ἔχοντες βοήθειαν, ποία ἡμῖν ἔσται 
συγγνώμη, ποία δὲ ἀπολογία ; 


22() THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXTI. 


humiliation, yet the Sabbath and the Lord’s-day were kept as 
standing festivals even in Lent, as has been showed before : 
and, therefore, on these days they offered the oblation of bread 
and wine in the eucharist, as at other seasons. But bya canon 
of the Council of Laodicea* this oblation seems confined to 
those two days: for it is prohibited to offer it upon any other: 
and that may seem to imply, that there was no communion on 
any other days in Lent. But then it may be considered, that 
in the time of the Council of Trullo’, there was a custom of 
communicating, on other days in Lent, upon the presanctified 
elements, that is, such as had been consecrated the Lord’s-day 
before: and if we can suppose this custom to have been an- 
ciently in the Church, then nothing hinders but that they 
might have a daily communion in Lent, as well as a daily ser- 
mon; which seems most agreeable to the fervent piety of those 
primitive ages. But in a doubtful matter I will not be positive, 
seeing there is otherwise evidence enough for frequent commu- 
nion in Lent, by supposing it only to be administered on every 
Sabbath and Lord’s-day. 


Sect. XXII.—AU Public Games and Stage-Plays prohibited 


at this Season. 


For the further advancement of piety and encouragement of 
religious assemblies at this season, all public games and stage 
plays were utterly forbidden by the laws of the Church. 
Gothofred* thinks the whole time of Lent is included in that 
famous law of Theodosius Junior, which prohibits all public 
games and shows on days of supplication, when the minds of 


ἃ Cone. Laodie. 6. xlix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1505.) “Ore οὐ δεῖ ἐν τεσσαρα- 
κοστῇ ἄρτον προσφέρειν, εἰ μὴ ἐν σαββάτῳ Kai κυριακῇ μόνον. 

b Cone. Trull. e. lii. (ibid. vol. vi. p. 1165.) "Ev πάσαις τῆς ἁγίας τεσσα- 
ρακοστῆς τῶν νηστειῶν ἡμέραις, παρεκτὸς τοῦ σαββάτου καὶ κυριακῆς, 
καὶ τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ ἡμέρας, γινέσθω ἡ τῶν προηγιασμένων 
ἱερὰ λειτουργία. 

© Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. v. de Spectaculis, leg. v. See book xx. chap. ii. 
sect. iv. note (z), p. 31. Gothofred. in loc. Theodosius Jun. hac lege non 
Dominico tantum die, etsi hune primum nominet, verum omnibus festis suppli- 
cationumque Christianarum diebus spectacula edi vetat: in quibus certe jeju- 
niorum dies nonnulli fuere, quibus proinde spectacula prohibita hac lege. 
(Vol. v. p. 354.) 





ὕπαρ. I. § 22. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 291 


Christians ought wholly to be employed in the worship of God. 
For though Lent be not expressly named in that law, yet it is 
comprised in the general name of the days of supplication. 
And it is certain the Church was very solicitous to restrain 
men from these pleasures and diversions at this holy season. 
Gregory Nazianzen has a very sharp epistle written to one of 
the judges upon this occasion, wherein he thus rebukes him®: 
“* You that are a judge, transgress the laws in not observing 
the fast : and how will you observe the laws of man, who trans- 
gress and despise the laws of God? Purge the judgment-seat, 
lest one of these two things befal you, either to be really 
wicked, or to be thought so. To exhibit profane shows is to 
make yourself a spectacle. In a word, stand corrected, O 
judge, and you will sin less for the future.’ St. Chrysostom, 
in his Lent sermons, with equal zeal, sets himself to chastise 
and correct this grand abuse of the holy season. He prefaces 
one of these homilies with this sharp invective against those 
that frequented the horse-racings of the Cirque at this time: 
‘* When I consider,” says he®, ‘* how at one blast of the devil 
ye have forgotten all my daily admonitions and continued dis- 
courses, and run to that pomp of Satan, the horse-race in the 
Cirque ; with what heart can I think of preaching to you 
again, who have so soon let slip all that I said before? 
This is what chiefly raises my grief, yea, my anger and indig- 


ἃ Nazianz. Ep. Ixxi. al. Ixxiv. (Colon. 1690. vol. i. p. 830.) (Bened. 1842. 
vol. ii. p. 101, D 3.) Παρανομεῖς, ὁ δικαστὴς οὐ νηστεύων" Kai πῶς φυλάξεις 
τοὺς ἀνθρωπίνους νόμους, τοὺς θείους περιφρονῶν ; καθαίρου σου τὸ δικασ- 
τήριον, ἵνα μὴ δυοῖν ἕν, ἢ γίνῃ κακὸς, ἢ νομίζῃ. Τὸ προτιθέναι θέας 
αἰσχρὰς, ἑαυτόν ἐστι θεατρίζειν. Κεφάλαιον τοῦ λόγου, ἴσθι κρινόμενος ὁ 
δικαστὴς, καὶ ἧττον ἁμαρτήσεις. 

e Chrysostom. Hom. vi. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 39.) Βούλομαι 
τῆς συνήθους ἅψασθαι διδασκαλίας, Kai ὀκνῶ, καὶ ἀναδύομαι' νέφος γὰρ 
ἀθυμίας ἐπελθὸν συνέχεε καὶ συνετάραξέ μου τὸν λογισμόν" μᾶλλον δὲ οὐκ 
ἀθυμίας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ θυμοῦ, καὶ οὐκ οἶδ᾽, ὅ,τι πράξω: ἀπορία γὰρ 
κατέχει τὴν διάνοιαν. Ὅταν γὰρ ἐννοήσω, OTL μικρὸν πνεύσαντος τοῦ δια- 
βόλου, πᾶσαν ἡμῶν ἐκείνην τὴν συνεχῆ διδασκαλίαν, καὶ τὴν καθημερινὴν 
παραίνεσιν λήθῃ παραδόντες, εἰς τὴν Σατανικὴν πομπὴν ἐκείνην ἅπαντες 
δεδραμήκατε, τὴν ἱπποδρομίαν καταλαβόντες" ποίᾳ προθυμίᾳ δυνήσομαι 
πάλιν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ποιήσασθαι διδασκαλίαν, τῶν προτέρων οὕτως ἀθρόον 
διαῤῥυέντων. . .. Ti τῆς νηστείας ὄφελος, εἰπέ μοι; τί τῆς ἐνταῦθα συν- 
ἐλεύσεως τὸ κέρδος ; 


2929 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΙ. 


nation, that together with my admonition ye have cast the 
reverence of this holy season of Lent out of your souls, and 
thrown yourselves into the nets of the devil. What profit is 
there in your fasting? What advantage in your meeting 
together so often in this place?’ He pursues the same argu- 
ment in the next discourse‘, dissuading them, in a very pathe- 
tical way, to wave this unseasonable practice: ‘* Subdue, I be- 
seech you, this wicked and pernicious custom: and consider, 
that they who run to the Cirque, not only do much harm to 
themselves, but are the occasion of great scandal to others. 
For when the Jews and Gentiles see you, who are every day 
at church to hear a sermon, come notwithstanding to the 
horse-race, and join with them in the Cirque; will they not 
reckon our religion a cheat, and entertain the same suspicion 
of us all? They will sharpen their tongues against us all; and 
for the offence of a few, condemn the whole body of Christians. 
Neither will they stop here, but rail at our Head; and for the 
servant's fault, blaspheme our common Lord, and think that a 


f Chrysostom. Hom. vii. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 49, B 4.) Τὴν 
ἀπὸ τῆς ῥᾳθυμίας προστριβεῖσαν ὑμῖν κηλίδα ἀπονίψασθε, περιγενόμενοι 
τῆς ἀκαίρου συνηθείας καὶ ἐπιβλαβοῦς, καὶ λογισάμενοι, ὡς οὐ τοῦτο μόνον 
ἐστὶ τὸ δεινὸν, Ore ἑαυτοῖς πολλὴν τὴν βλάβην προστρίβονται οἱ αὐτόθι 
παραγενόμενοι. ἀλλ᾽ OTL καὶ πολλοῖς ἑτέροις σκανδάλου ὑπόθεσις γίνονται. 
ὅταν γὰρ ἴδωσιν “Ἕλληνες καὶ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστης ἡμέρας εἰς τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν διημερεύοντα, καὶ συνεχοῦς ἀπολαύοντα διδασκαλίας ἀθρόον ἐκεῖ 
φαινόμενον, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν συμφυρόμενον, πῶς οὐ νομίσουσιν ἀπάτην εἶναι 
τὰ ἡμέτερα, καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόληψιν ἕξουσιν : 
ἢ οὐκ ἀκούεις τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου παραινοῦντος λαμπρᾷ τῇ φωνῇ καὶ 
συμβουλεύοντος, ᾿Απρόσκοποι γίνεσθε; εἶτα ἵνα μὴ νομίσῃς περὶ τῶν οἰκείων 
μόνον τὴν παραγγελίαν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι, καὶ τῶν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τεταγ- 
μένων, προσέθηκεν, Καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίοις καὶ “Ἕλλησι καὶ τότε ἐπήγαγε, Καὶ τῇ 
ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω λυμαίνεται καὶ βλάπτει τὴν θρησκείαν 
τὴν ἡμετέραν, ὡς τὸ τοῖς ἀπίστοις λαβήν τινα παρέχειν. Ὅταν οὖν ἴδωσί 
τινας ἐν ἀρετῇ διαλάμποντας παρ᾽ ἡμῖν, καὶ πολλὴν τῶν βιωτικῶν ὑπερ- 
οψίαν ποιουμένους, (p. 62.) οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποπνίγονται ἐκπληττόμενοι, 
ὕτι τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως ὄντες οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ αὐτοῖς μετίασιν. ἀμέλει ἐπειδὰν 
θεάσωνταί τινα μικρὰν ῥᾳθυμίαν προσγενομένην, εὐθέως τὴν γλῶτταν 
ἀκονοῦσι κατὰ πάντων ὁμοῦ, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ῥᾳθυμίας κατὰ παντὸς 
τοῦ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἔθνους τὰ αὐτὰ ψηφίζονται. Καὶ οὐδὲ μέχρι τούτου 
ἵστανται, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως κατὰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν κεφαλῆς φθεγγόμενοι, διὰ τὴν 
τῶν δούλων ῥᾳθυμίαν καὶ τὸν κοινὸν Δεσπότην βλασφημεῖν τολμῶσι, καὶ 
νομίζουσι τῆς οἰκείας πλάνης παραπέτασμα αὐτοῖς γίνεσθαι τὴν ἑτέρων 


ῥᾳθυμίαν. 


Cuap. I. § 23. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 993 


sufficient apology and excuse for their own errors, that they 
have something to object to the life and conversation of others.” 
By this it appears, there was no pardon for those who were so 
eager after the public diversions, as to follow them in Lent, 
when men’s public professions of repentance, humiliation, and 
sorrow, made it utterly unseasonable and absurd to pursue the 
vain recreations and pleasures of the world, which, at such a 
juncture, could become none but those who lived in darkness 
and heathenish superstition. 


Sect. X XIII.—As also the Celebration of all Festivals, Birth- 
days, and Marriages, as unsuitable to the present Occasion. 


For the same reason they forbade the celebration of all 
festivals of martyrs at this season, except it were upon the 
Sabbath or the Lord’s-day : because all festivals were days of 
rejoicing, which were not consistent with deep humiliation and 
mourning belonging to a strict and severe fast: but the 
Sabbath and the Lord’s-day were excepted from fasting even 
in Lent, as has been noted before; and, therefore, on these 
days, the festivals of martyrs might be celebrated, but on no 
other during the whole time of Lent, as appears from an ex- 
press canon of the Council of Laodicea made in this behalf®. 
And by another canon of the same Council, all celebrations of 
marriages and birthdays are absolutely forbidden in Lent: 
where, by birthdays called γενέθλια in the canon, we are to 
understand private men’s natural birthdays ; which being cele- 
brated with great tokens and solemnities of joy, with feasting, 
and other ceremonies of pleasure and delight, were not proper 
to be kept in the time of fasting, as being things inconsistent 
and incompatible with one another; and the rather to be for- 
borne, because, at this time, the Church did not allow the 
solemnizing of the nativities, or birthdays of her martyrs, which 
otherwise were of great esteem in the Church. 


& Cone. Laodie. ¢. li. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1505.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἐν τεσσαρακοστῇ 
μαρτύρων γενέθλιον ἐπιτελεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων μνείαν ποιεῖν ἐν 
τοῖς σαββάτοις καὶ κυριακαῖς. 

h Jbid. ο. lii. (ibid. vol. i. p. 1505.) “Ore οὐ δεῖ ἐν τεσσαρακοστῇ γάμους ἢ "ἡ 
γενέθλια ἐπιτελεῖν. 


DIA THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


Sect. XXIV.—The Great Week before Easter observed with 
greater Strictness and Solemnity. 


These were the common rules observed in keeping the Lent- 
fast, when it was come to the length of forty days. But there 
was one week, called the ‘hebdomas magna,’ or ‘the great 
week” before Easter, which they observed with greater strict- 
ness and solemnity above all the rest. No one can better 
describe it to us than St. Chrysostom, who tells τὶ, “ It was 
called ‘the great week,’ not because it consisted of longer 
days, or more in number than other weeks, but because, at 
this time, great things were wrought for us by our Lord. 
For in this week the ancient tyranny of the devil was dis- 
solved, death was extinct, the strong man was bound, his 
goods were spoiled, sin was abolished, the curse was destroyed, 
Paradise was opened, heaven became accessible, men and 
angels were joined together, the middle wall of partition was 
broken down, the barriers were taken out of the way, the God 
of Peace made peace between things in heaven and things on 
earth : therefore it is called ‘the great week :’ and as this is 
the head of all other weeks, so the great Sabbath is the head 
of this week, being the same thing in this week as the head is 


i Chrysostom. Hom. in Psalm, exlv. (Bened. 1718. vol. ν. p. 525. Ο 5.) Διὸ 
καὶ μεγάλην καλοῦμεν αὐτήν" οὐκ ἐπειδὴ μεῖζον ἔχουσι μῆκος τῶν ἄλλων 
ἁπασῶν αἱ ταύτης ἡμέραι, (καὶ γάρ εἰσιν ἕτεραι peiZouc,) οὐδὲ ἐπειδὴ 
πλείους τὸν ἀριθμὸν, (καὶ γὰρ ἴσαι ταῖς ἄλλαις εἰσίν") ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ μεγάλα 
ἡμῖν γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῇ παρὰ τοῦ Δεσπότου κατορθώματα. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν ταύτῃ 
τῇ ἑβδομάδι τῇ μεγάλῃ ἡ χρονία τοῦ διαβόλου κατελύθη τυραννὶς, ὁ θάνα- 
τος ἐσβέσθη, ὁ ἰσχυρὸς ἐδέθη, τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ διηρπάγη, ἁμαρτία ἀνῃρέθη, 
ἡ κατάρα κατελύθη, ὁ παράδεισος ἀνεῴχθη, ὁ οὐρανὸς βάσιμος γέγονεν" 
ἄνθρωποι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις ἀνεμίγησαν, τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ ἤρθη, τὸ 
θρίγκιον περιῃρέθη, ὁ τῆς εἰρήνης Θεὸς εἰρηνοποίησε τὰ ἄνω καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς διὰ τοῦτο μεγάλη καλεῖται ἑβδομάς" καὶ ὥσπερ αὕτη κεφάλαιον 
τῶν λοιπῶν ἑβδομάδων, οὕτω ταύτης κεφαλὴ τὸ σάββατον τὸ μέγα" καὶ 
καθάπερ ἐν σώματι κεφαλὴ, οὕτως ἐν τῇ ἑβδομάδι τὸ σάββατον" διὰ τοῦτο 
ἐν αὐτῇ πολλοὶ τὴν σπουδὴν ἐπιτείνουσι: καὶ οἱ μὲν τὴν νηστείαν αὔξουσιν, 
οἱ δὲ τὰς ἀγρυπνίας τὰς ἱερὰς, οἱ δὲ ἐλεημοσύνην δαψιλεστέραν ἐργάζονται, 
τῇ περὶ τὰς ἀγαθὰς πράξεις σπουδῇ καὶ τῇ συντεταμένῃ περὶ τὸν βίον 
εὐλαβείᾳ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς εὐεργεσίας τῆς εἰς ἡμᾶς γεγενημένης παρὰ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ μαρτυροῦντες. Καθάπερ γὰρ, ὅτε τὸν Λάζαρον ἀνέστησεν ὁ Κύριος, 
ἀπήντων αὐτῷ πάντες οἱ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, καὶ τῷ πλήθει ἐμαρτύρουν, br, 
ἀνέστησε τὸν νεκρὸν (ἡ γὰρ σπουδὴ τῶν ἐξελθόντων, τοῦ θαύματος ἣν 


Cnap. 1. § 24. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 29% 
in the body. Therefore, in this week, many increase their 
labours; some adding to their fastings ; others, to their 
watching; others give more liberal alms, testifyimg the great- 
ness of the Divine goodness by their care of good works, and 
more intense piety and holy living. As the Jews went forth 
to meet Christ, when he had raised Lazarus from the dead, 
so now not one city, but all the world, go forth to meet him, 
not with palm-branches in their hands, but with alms-deeds, 
humanity, virtue, fasting, tears, prayers, watchings, and all 
kinds of piety, which they offer to Christ their Lord. And 
not only we, but the emperors of the world, honour this week, 
making it a time of vacation from all civil business ; that the 
magistrates, being at liberty from business of the law, may 
spend all these days in spiritual service. Let the doors of the 
courts, say they, now be shut up: let all disputes and all kinds 
of contention and punishment cease: let the executioner’s 
hands rest a little: common blessings are wrought for us all 
by our common Lord, let some good be done by us his ser- 
vants. Nor is this the only honour they show to this week, 
but they do one thing more, no less considerable. The impe- 
rial letters are sent abroad at this time, commanding all pri- 
soners to be set at liberty from their chains. For as our 
Lord, when he descended into hell, set free those that were 


ἀπόδειξις) οὕτω δὴ καὶ νῦν ἡ σπουδὴ ἡ περὶ THY μεγάλην ἑβδομάδα 
ταύτην, τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν κατορθωμάτων τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τεκμήριόν ἐστι καὶ 
ἀπόδειξις. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκ μιᾶς πόλεως ἐξερχόμεθα ἀπαντῶντες τῷ Χριστῷ 
σήμερον" οὐδὲ ἐξ “Ἱεροσολύμων μόνον: ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης 
μυρίανδροι πάντοθεν ἐκκλησίαι ἐξέρχονται ἀπαντῶσαι τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, οὐ Baia 
φοινίκων κατέχουσαι καὶ ἐπισείουσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν, 
καὶ ἀρετὴν, καὶ νηστείαν, καὶ δάκρυα, καὶ εὐχὰς, καὶ ἀγρυπνίας, καὶ πᾶσαν 
εὐλάβειαν προσφέρουσαι τῷ Δεσπότῃ Χριστῷ. Οὐχ ἡμεῖς δὲ μόνον ταύτην 
τιμῶμεν τὴν ἑβδομάδα, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένης, οὐχ 
ὡς ἔτυχεν, αὐτὴν τετιμήκασιν, ἐκεχειρίαν πᾶσι δόντες τοῖς τὰ κοινὰ τῶν 
πόλεων πράττουσι πράγματα, ἵνα τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἀπολαύσαντες σχολῆς, τὰς 
ἡμέρας ταύτας ἁπάσας τῇ πνευματικῇ προσέχωσι θεραπείᾳ. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ 
τῶν δικαστηρίων τὰς θύρας ἀπέκλεισαν" ἀργείτω, φησὶ, πᾶσα ἀμφισβήτησις 
καὶ μάχης εἶδος καὶ τιμωρίας" ἀναπαυσάσθωσαν μικρὸν τῶν δημίων αἱ 
χεῖρες κοινὰ τὰ κατορθώματα τοῦ Δεσπότου γέγονε; γενέσθω δή τι καὶ 
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν δούλων ἀγαθόν" οὐ ταύτῃ δὲ μόνον αὐτὴν τετιμήκασι Τῇ 
σπουδῇ καὶ τιμῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑτέρᾳ οὐκ ἐλάττονι ταύτης" βασιλικὰ, οἷς, See 
Ρ. 112, note (x). 
VOL. VII. Q 


296 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book ΧΧΙ. 


detained by death; so the servants, according to their power, 
imitating the kindness of their Lord, loose men from their 
corporeal bonds, when they have no power to relax the spiri- 
tual.” All this is repeated by Chrysostom in another of his 
Lent-Sermons ἕν much in the same words, which therefore it 
is needless to recite at length in this place: but it will not be 
improper to review the particulars, and confirm them by paral- 
lel passages of other writers. It is evident the strict observa- 
tion of this week was in use in the time of Dionysius, bishop 
of Alexandria, who was scholar to Origen, though with some 
difference, according to men’s ability or zeal in observing it: 
for he thus speaks of it in his Canonical Epistle': ‘Some 
make a superposition of the whole six days, continuing all the 
time without eating ; some add two days together, some three, 
some four, and some not one. Now to those who have borne 
such superpositions, continuing without sustenance, and grow 
unable to hold out, and are ready to faint, to them leave is to 
be given for an earlier refreshment. But if there be any who 
have been so far from superponing the preceding days, that 
they have not so much as kept a common fast, but, it may be, 
have feasted on them, and then coming to the two last days, 
Friday and the Saturday, have kept a fast of superposition on 
them, and think they do a great thing if they hold out till 
break of day; I cannot think these have striven equally with 
those who have been engaged in the exercise more days 
before.” 


k Chrysostom. Hom. xxx. in Genes. (Bened. 1718, vol. iv. p. 294, E.) 

! Dionys. Epist. Canon. 6. i. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 836, A 2.) (Bevereg. Pandect. 
tom. ii. p. 3.) ᾿Επεὶ μηδὲ rac ἐξ τῶν νηστειῶν ἡμέρας ἴσως μηδὲ ὁμοίως 
πάμτες διαμένουσιν" ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν καὶ πάσας ὑπερτιθέασιν ἄσιτοι διατελοῦν- 
τες, οἱ δὲ δύο, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς, οἱ δὲ τέσσαρας, οἱ δὲ οὐδεμίαν" καὶ τοῖς μὲν 
πάνυ διαπονηθεῖσιν ἐν ταῖς ὑπερθέσεσιν, εἶτα ἀποκαμοῦσι καὶ μονονοὺ ἐκλεί- 
πουσι, συγγνώμη τῆς ταχυτέρας γεύσεως. Hi δέ τινες οὐχ ὅπως ὑπερτιθέ- 
μενοι, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ νηστεύσαντες, ἢ καὶ τρυφήσαντες τὰς προαγούσας τέσσα- 
ρας, εἶτα ἐλθόντες ἐπὶ τὰς τελευταίας δύο καὶ μόνας ἡμέρας, αὐτὰς ὑπερ- 
τιθέντες, τήν TE παρασκευὴν καὶ τὸ σάββατον, μέγα τι καὶ λαμπρὸν ποιεῖν 
νομίζουσιν, ἂν μέχρι τῆς ἕω διαμείνωσιν. οὐκ οἶμαι τὴν ἴσην ἄθλησιν 
αὐτοὺς πεποιῆσθαι τοῖς τὰς πλείονας ἡμέρας προησκηκόσι. 


~I 


Cuap, I. ὃ 25. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 99 


Sect. XXV.—What meant by the Fasts called ὑπερθέσεις; 
and Superpositiones, ‘ Superpository or Additional Fasts,’ 
in this Week. 


It is plain from henee, that in this great week many made 
an addition to the common way of fasting. For whereas, in 
the foregoing part of Lent, they took some refreshment every 
evening, and never fasted on the Sabbath; now they not only 
fasted on the Sabbath in this week, but added to it, some one 
day, some two, some three, some four, some five days, which 
they passed in perfect abstinence, eating nothing all this week 
till the morning of the resurrection. This kind of fasting the 
Greeks call ὑπερθέσεις, and the Latins ‘ superpositiones,” 
‘superpository or additional fasts.’ Dionysius, in the place 
last mentioned, uses the name ὑπερτιθέμενοι, for those that 
passed the whole six days fasting. And Epiphanius, speaking 
of the manner of observing the same six days, says™, “ All 
the people kept them ἐν Enpopayia, ‘living on dry meats τ᾿ 
namely, bread, and salt, and water, which they only used at 
evening: and they that were more zealous, superadded two, 
three, four days ; and some the whole week, till cock-crowing 
on Sunday morning.” Where we may observe two sorts of 
additions made to the common fast in this week above 
others"; first, that they confined themselves to the use of 
dry meats only, which they did not generally in the former 


τὰ Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. n. xxii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 1105, C.) Τὰς δὲ 
ἕξ ἡμέρας τοῦ πάσχα ἐν ξηροφαγίᾳ διατελοῦσι πάντες οἱ λαοί: φημὶ δὲ 
ἄρτῳ, καὶ ἁλὶ, καὶ ὕδατι τότε χρώμενοι πρὸς ἑσπέραν" ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ σπου- 
δαῖοι διπλᾶς, καὶ τριπλᾶς, καὶ τετραπλᾶς ὑπερτίθενται, καὶ ὕλην τὴν 
ἑβδομάδα τινὲς ἄχρι ἀλεκτρυόνων κλαγγῆς, τῆς κυριακῆς ἐπιφωσκούσης. 

n Constit. Apost. lib. v. 6. xviii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 366.) "Ev ταῖς ἡμέραις 
τοῦ πάσχα νηστεύετε, ἀρχόμενοι ἀπὸ δευτέρας μέχρι τῆς παρασκευῆς, Kat 
σαββάτου, 2 ἡμέρας, μόνῳ χρώμενοι ἄρτῳ, καὶ ἁλὶ, καὶ λαχάνοις, καὶ ποτῷ 
ὕδατι: οἴνου δὲ καὶ κρεῶν ἀπέχεσθε ἐν ταύταις" ἡμέραι γάρ εἰσι πένθους, 
καὶ οὐχ ἑορτῆς τὴν μέν τοι παρασκευὴν καὶ τὸ σάββατον ὁλόκληρον 
νηστεύσατε, οἷς δύναμις πρόσεστι τοιαύτη, μηδενὸς γευόμενοι μέχρις ἀλεκ- 
τοροφωνίας νυκτός" εἰ δέ τις ἀδυνατεῖ τὰς δύο συνάπτειν ὁμοῦ, φυλασσέσθω 
κἂν τὸ σάββατον" λέγει γάρ που ὁ Κύριος περὶ ἑαυτοῦ φάσκων, Ὅταν 
ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος, νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις. "Ev 
ταύταις οὖν ἤρθη ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ὑπὸ τῶν ψευδωνύμων ᾿Ιουδαίων, καὶ σταυρῷ 
προσεπάγη, καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη. 


a 2 


298 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


part of Lent; and, secondly, that they continued their fast for 
several days together, without any sustenance, some passing 
over the whole six days in this rigorous way, without any 
abatement. And so Epiphanius represents it in another 
place, where he speaks of the manner of observing the holy 
week of the Pasch®: ‘“ Some continued the whole week 
ὑπερτιθέμενοι; ‘making one continued fast of the whole ;’ 
others eat after two days, and others every evening.” This 
was otherwise called ἐπισυνάπτειν, and ‘jejunia conjungere et 
continuare, as we find in Sozomen and Tertullian. For 
Sozomen, speaking of Spiridion’s way of observing the great 
Paschal week, says’, ‘‘ At that time, he was used, with his 
whole family, ἐπισυνάπτειν τὴν νηστείαν, ‘to join one day of 
fasting to another,’ and only eat at a certain day, continuing 
without any food all the days between.” And this, in Tertul- 
lian’s phrase, is ‘jejunia conjungere,’ ‘ to join one day of fast- 
ing to another’;’ and ‘Sabbatum continuare cum jejuniis 
Parasceues',’ to make Friday and Saturday in the Passion- 
week one continued fast. This was an exercise which many 
of those who followed the ascetic life used at other times: for 
Evagrius, speaking of the monks of Palestine, says’, ‘“ They 
observed τὰς καλουμένας ὑπερθεσίμους, ‘those called super- 
pository fasts,’ continuing them for two or three days, and 
some for five days together.” This, in the Latin writers, is 


© Epiphan. Heres. xxix. Nazar. sect. v. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 120, C 8.) 
“Qc τινες ἑβδομάδα τὴν ἁγίαν τῶν Idoywy ὑπερτιθέμενοι διετέλουν, ἄλλοι 
δὲ διὰ δύο ἐσθίοντες, ἄλλοι δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἑσπέραν. 

P Sozom. lib. i. 6. xi. See sect. xvii. note (k), p. 213. 

ᾳ Tertul. de Patient. ο. xiii. (Paris. 1664. p. 147, D 1.) Imprimis adflictatio 
carnis, hostia Domino placatoria per humiliationis sacrificium, quum sordes cum 
angustia victus Domino libat, contenta simplici pabulo puroque aque potu, 
quum jejunia conjungit, quum cineri et sacco inolescit. 

r Tertul. de Jejun. 6. xiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 552, C.) Cur stationibus quartam 
et sextam Sabbati dicamus, et jejuniis Parasceuen? quamquam vos etiam 
Sabbatum, si quando continuatis, numquam nisi in Pascha jejunandum secun- 
dum rationem alibi redditam. Vid. Constit. Apostol. lib. v. ὁ. xviii. note (n), 
p. 227. 

5. Evagr. lib. i. c. xxi. (Reading, 1720. p. 277, 9.) (Amstel. 1695. p. 278, 
B11.) Οἱ πολλάκις piv καὶ τὰς καλουμένας ὑπερθεσίμους πράττουσι, διήμε- 
ροι καὶ τριήμεροι τὰς νηστείας ἐκτελοῦντες" εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ καὶ πεμπταῖοι, ἢ καὶ 
πρὸς, κι τ. Δ. 


Cuap. I. ὃ 27. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 999 


aw 


called ‘superpositio jejunii:’ as in the fragment of ‘ Victorinus 
Petavionensis,’ published by Dr. Cave', where he speaks of 
the several sorts of fasts observed among Christians, some of 
which were only till the ninth hour, some till evening, and 
some with a superposition, or addition of one fasting-day to 
another. Though we must note, that the superposition of a 
fast is not always taken in this sense, but sometimes denotes 
a new appointed fast of any kind, though it had nothing ex- 
traordinary but only the newness of the imposition in it, as we 
find in the Council of Eliberis", of*which more hereafter in its 
proper place. 


Sect. XX V1.—Christians more liberal in their Alms and 
Charity this Week above others. 


The next addition mentioned by Chrysostom, as made in the 
spiritual exercise and observation of this week, is their more 
liberal distribution of alms to the poor, and exercise of all 
kinds of charity to those that stood in need of it. For the 
nearer they approached to the passion and resurrection of 
Christ, by which all the blessings in the world were poured 
forth upon men, the more they thought themselves obliged to 
show all manner of acts of mercy and kindness toward their 
brethren. 


Secr. XXVII.—This Week a Week of Rest and Liberty for 


Servants. 


Particularly this week before Easter, and the following week, 
was a time of rest and liberty to servants. Many, in great 
charity, had their freedom granted them, in imitation of the 
spiritual liberty which Christ, at this time, had procured for 
all mankind. This is clear from what has been showed before * 


t Victorin. de Fabrica Mundi. (See Cave, Hist. Litt. Basil. 1741. vol. i. 
p- 148.) Nune ratio novitatis ostenditur, quare dies 4 tetras nuncupatur : 
quare usque ad horam nonam jejunamus, usque ad vesperam, aut super- 
positio usque in alterum diem fiat. 

ἃ Cone. Illiber. ¢. xxiii. (Labbe, vol, i. p. 973.) Jejuniorum superpositiones 
per singulos menses placuit celebrari, exceptis diebus duorum mensium Julii et 
Augusti, ob quorumdam infirmitatem. Can. xxvi. Errorem placuit corrigi, 
ut omni Sabbati die superpositiones celebremus. 

x Book xx. chap. v. sect. vi. and vii. p. 111 and 113. 





930 « THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


out of Gregory Nyssen, and the laws of Theodosius, which allow 
all juridical acts done in favour of slaves in the fifteen days of 
the Paschal solemnity, in which both the Pasch of the cross 
and the Pasch of the resurrection are equally included. Both 
these weeks, likewise, were equally set apart for Divine ser- 
vice: and, for that reason, all servants had a vacation from 
their ordinary bodily labour, that they might have more leisure 
and opportunity to attend the worship of God, and concerns 
of their souls. ‘The author of the Constitutions, in conformity 
to this custom, which he found in the practice of the Church, 
gives this direction’: ‘‘ In the whole great week (before 
Easter) and the week following, let servants rest from their 
labour ; because the one is the time of our Lord’s Passion, and 
the other of his resurrection ; and servants have need to be 
instructed in the knowledge of those mysteries.” 


Sect. XX VIII.—A general Release granted at this time by the 
Emperors to all Prisoners, both Debtors and Criminals, some 
particular Cases of Criminals only ecacepted. 


That particular sort of charity which Chrysostom speaks of, 
as showed by the emperors to all prisoners, as well criminals 
as debtors, in granting them a general release out of prison 
at this season, is demonstrated from the imperial laws still in 
being: for they are said to grant this indulgence with a par- 
ticular respect to the Paschal solemnity, which includes as well 
the great week before as the week following Haster-day 2. 
And so not only Chrysostom, but St. Ambrose understood it, 
when he said ἃ, ‘ The holy days of the last week in Lent was 
the time when the bonds of debtors used to be loosed.” 
Wherefore whatever has been said before of this indulgence as 
belonging to the Easter festival, is so to be understood as be- 


Y Constitut. lib. viii. ὁ. xxxiii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 498, Ὁ 6.) Τὴν μεγάλην 
ἑβδομάδα πᾶσαν, καὶ τὴν per’ αὐτὴν ἀργείτωσαν ot δοῦλοι: OTe ἡ μὲν 
πάθους ἐστὶν, ἡ δὲ ἀναστάσεως" καὶ χρεία διδασκαλίας, τίς ὁ παθὼν καὶ 
ἀναστὰς, ἢ τίς ὁ συγχωρήσας. 

2 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. ὁ. xxxvili. de Indulgent. Crimin. leg. iii. οὐ iv. See 
before, book xx. chap. v. sect. vi. note (1), p. 108. 

a Ambros. Ep. xxxii. (Bened. 1686. vol. ii. p. 853.) Sanctis diebus hebdo- 
madis ultimze, quibus solebant debitorum laxari vincula, ete. 


Cuap. 1. 8 30. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 931 


longing to this holy and great week of our Saviour’s Passion, 
when these indulgences first commenced, and continued in 
force till the whole festival was ended. 


Sect. XXIX.—All Processes at Law, as well Civil as Crimi- 
nal, suspended this whole Week before Easter. 


What Chrysostom says further of the emperor’s command- 
ing all suits and processes at law to cease in this great week, 
and the tribunal doors to be shut up, is taken from the express 
words of the law of Theodosius, still extant in both the Codes. 
For these, appointing what days shall be exempted from juri- 
dical actions, expressly mention the fifteen days of the Paschal 
solemnity, the week preceding and the week following Easter?. 
St. Austin speaks of the same°: and Scaliger¢ mentions a iaw 
of Constantine, wherein he had made a like decree, that the 
two Paschal weeks, the one immediately before, and the other 
following Easter, should be exempted from all business of the 
law. The design of which was, that nothing of animosity, or 
contention, or cruelty, or punishment, or bloodshed, should 
appear at this holy season, when all men were labouring to 
obtain mercy and pardon by the blood of Christ; and that 
men sequestering themselves from all civil and worldly busi- 
ness, might, with greater assiduity, attend the exercises of 
piety which were peculiar to the solemn occasion. 


Sect. XX X.—The Thursday in this Week, how observed. 


The Thursday in this week, which was the day on which 
Christ was betrayed, and instituted the communion at his last 
supper, was observed with some peculiar customs. For on 
this day, in some of the Latin Churches, the communion was 
administered in the evening after supper, in imitation of the 
communion of the apostles at our Lord’s last supper: as we 
find by a provision made in one of the canons of the ‘ third 


b Cod. Theod. lib. ii. tit. viii. de Feriis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 121.) 
Sanctos quoque Paschze dies, qui septeno vel praecedunt numero, vel sequuntur, 
in eadem observatione numeramus. 

e Aug. Serm. xix. ex editis a Sirmondo. See before, book xx. chap. v. sect. i. 
note (e), p. 88. 

4 Scaliger. de Emendat. 'Tempor. lib. vii. p. 776. See note (f), p. 88. 


932 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΙ. 


Council of Carthage®,’(?) “‘That the sacrament of the altar 
should always be received by men fasting, except on one anni- 
versary day, when the Lord’s last supper was solemnly com- 
memorated.” St. Austin takes notice of the same custom, 
and withal observes‘, that the communion, in some places, was 
administered twice on this day; in the morning, for the sake 
of such as could not keep the day a fast; and in the evening, 
for those that fasted till evening, when they ended their fast, 
and received the communion after supper. He likewise tells 
us, there was a particular reason why many could not fast 
upon this day, and therefore they received the communion in 
the morning: for it was customary with many who had kept 
Lent, to bathe and wash their bodies on this day, as the cate- 
chumens did, in order to appear decently, pure and clean from 
the filth which their bodies might have contracted by the 
austerities of Lent, when they came to be baptized on the 
vigil, or night between the great Sabbath and Haster-day : 
they could not bear both bathing and fasting, and therefore 
they fasted not on this day, but received the communion in 
the morning, and ate their dinner as at other times; whilst 
others fasted all the day, and received the communion after 
supper. 

On this day, the ‘competentes,’ or ‘candidates of baptism,’ 
publicly rehearsed the Creed before the bishop or presbyters 
in the church, as we learn from the Council of Laodicea, 


© Cone. Carth. III. ¢. xxiii. Ut sacramenta altaris non nisi a jejunis homini- 
bus celebrentur, excepto uno die anniversario, quo ccoona Domini celebratur. 
[N.B. The preceding words are a translation of part of the forty-first canon of 
the African Church. See Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1069.] 

f Aug. Epist. exviii. ad Januar. 6. vii. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 96, B 10.) 
Nonnullos probabilis queedam ratio delectavit, ut uno certo die per annum, quo 
ipsam coenam Dominus dedit, tamquam ad insigniorem commemorationem post 
cibos offerri et accipi liceat corpus et sanguinem Domini. Honestius autem 
arbitror ea hora fieri, ut qui etiam jejunaverit, post refectionem, quie hora nona 
fit, ad oblationem possit occurrere. Quapropter neminem cogimus ante Do- 
minicam illam ecenam prandere, sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus. Hoe 
tamen non arbitror institutum, nisi quia plures et prope omnes in plerisque 
locis eo die lavare [coenare] consuerunt. Et quia nonnulli etiam jejunium cus- 
todiunt, mane offertur [Christo] propter prandentes, quia jejunia simul et 
lavacra tolerare non possunt, ad vesperam vero propter jejunantes. 

δ Cone. Laodie. ὁ. xlvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1504.) Ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς φωτιζομένους 


Cuarv. I. ὃ 30. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 933 


which fixes this rehearsal to the fifth day of the great week ; 
and from Theodorus Lector, who says", ‘“‘ Timotheus, bishop 
of Constantinople, was the first that ordered the Creed to be 
recited in every church-assembly, which before was used to be 
repeated only once ‘a-year by the catechumens on the ‘ para- 
sceue, or ‘preparation to our Saviour’s Passion,’ when the 
bishop was wont to catechize them.” 

On this day it was customary for servants to receive the 
communion, as we find in Joannes Moschus'; who tells us a 
remarkable story of one who laid up the eucharist in his chest, 
which he had brought home from church with him, τῇ ayia 
καὶ μεγάλῃ πέμπτῃ, Son this great and holy fifth day of the 
Passion-week :’ under which name we find it also in the title 
of one of Chrysostom’s sermons upon this day*, τῇ ayia καὶ 
μεγάλῃ πεντάδι. The modern ritualists. call it ‘ Maundy- 
Thursday,’ ‘dies Mandati,’ because on this day our Saviour 
washed his disciples’ feet, and gave them commandment to 
follow his example!; or, because he instituted the sacrament 
of his Supper upon this day, commanding his disciples to do 
the same in remembrance of him, as others™ expound it. But 
the pope’s custom of excommunicating all people and princes 
that are enemies to the Roman Church on this day; and, 


THY πίστιν ἐκμανθάνειν, Kai τῇ πέμπτῃ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀπαγγέλλειν τῷ 
ἐπισκόπῳ ἢ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. 

h Theodor. Lect. (Reading, 1720. p. 578.) (Amstel. 1695. p. 563, C 4.) Τιμό- 
θεος τὸ THY τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ πατέρων τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον, κατ᾽ 
ἑκάστην σύναξιν λέγεσθαι παρεσκεύασεν, ἐπὶ διαβολῇ, δῆθεν Μακεδονίου 
ὡς αὐτοῦ μὴ δεχομένου τὸ σύμβολον, ἅπαξ τοῦ ἔτους λεγόμενον πρότερον 
ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρασκευῇ τοῦ θείου πάθους, τῷ καιρῷ τῶν γινομένων ἐπισκό- 
που κατηχήσεων. 

i Mosch. Prat. Spirit. c. xxix. Ἔχων δὲ πιστικὸν κοινωνοῦντα τῇ ἁγίᾳ 
καθολικῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ" οὗτος ὁ πιστικὸς, κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς 
χώρας, ἔλαβεν κοινωνίαν τῇ ἁγίᾳ πέμπτῃ καὶ βαλὼν αὐτὴν ἐν μουζικίῳ 
ἐσεέθετο ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ ἀρμαρίῳ, κ. τ. λ. 

kK Chrysostom. Hom. xxx. de Proditione Judze. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 376.) 
Εἰς τὴν παραδοσίαν τοῦ ᾿Ιούδα, καὶ εἰς τὸ πάσχα, Kai εἰς THY παράδοσιν 
τῶν μυστηρίων, καὶ περὶ τοῦ μὴ μνησικακεῖν" τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ πεντάδι. 

! Bishop Sparrow’s Rationale on the Common Prayer. (Oxford, 1839. p. 125.) 
This day Christ washed his disciples’ feet, and gave them a commandment to do 
likewise. Hence it is ealled dies mandati, mandate, or Maundy Thursday. 

m Hamon L’Estrange’s Alliance of Divine Offices, (p. 142.) On this day the 
now Church of Rome accurseth and excommunicateth all Protestants, &e. 


234 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


among the rest, the King of Spain, for invading the rights of 
the Church™ (whom he absolves again, without asking any 
pardon, on Good- Friday), as it is a grand ridicule and mock of 
Church-discipline, so it is without all foundation in the practice 
of the ancient Church. 


Sect. XXXI1.—Of the Passion-Day, or the Pasch of our 
Lord’s Crucifixion. 


Some with greater probability suppose, that such public 
penitents as had completed their penance for one, two, three 
years, or more, the Lent preceding (for the years of penance 
were usually reckoned from Easter to Easter), were absolved 
on this day: at least, it is certain, they were reconciled either 
this or the day following. For St. Ambrose says very ex- 
pressly°, ‘‘ That the day of relaxation of penance in the Church 
was the day on which our Lord gave himself for us:” which 
must mean either the day on which he was betrayed by Judas, 
or the day of his Passion, when he offered himself a sacrifice 
for the sins of mankind; that is, the ‘ Parasceue,’ or ‘ Good- 
Friday,’ or ‘the Pasch,’ as it is often called; meaning ‘the 
Pasch of the Cross,’ πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, in opposition to the 
πάσχα ἀναστάσιμον, or ‘ Pasch of the Resurrection.” Nor 
was it only particular absolutions that were granted to public 
penitents on this day of the Passion, but a general absolution 
or indulgence was proclaimed to all the people, observing the 
day with fasting, prayers, and true contrition or compunction. 
As we find in the fourth Council of Toledo, which makes a 
complaint, that in some of the Spanish Churches, the day of 
the Lord’s Passion was not regularly observed ; for the church- 
doors were shut up, and no Divine service performed: where- 
fore they order’, ‘‘ That the mystery of the cross should be 


n The Bull de Coena Domini: Du Moulin, Buckler of Faith. (Lond. 1631. 
p- 37.) The Bull de Ceena Domini is a solemn excommunication which the Pope 
thundereth out every year on Maundy Thursday ; ... wherein he nameth . . 
emperors, kings, dukes, &c., who shall appeal from the Pope to any future 
Council. 

© Ambros. Epist. xxxiii. ad Sororem. (Bened. 1686. vol. ii. p. 859, B 8.) 
Erat dies, quo sese Dominus pro nobis tradidit, quo in Ecclesia pcenitentia 
relaxatur. 

P Cone. Tolet. IV. c. vii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 1707.) Oportet eodem die myste- 


Cuap. I. § 31. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 935 


preached on this day; and that all the people should wait for 
the indulgence or absolution, that being cleansed by the com- 
punction of repentance and remission of sins, they might 
worthily celebrate the venerable feast of the Lord’s resur- 
rection, and come pure and clean to partake of the sacrament 
of his body and blood.” They further condemn such as ended 
their fast on this day at the ninth hour ; and order, “ That 
all, except little children, old men, and the sick, should spend 
the whole day in abstinence and mourning, and not give over 
their fast, ‘ante peractas indulgentize preces, ‘before the 
prayers of absolution were ended.’” Whence it may be infer- 
red, that this absolution was the close of the public service of 
this day, which whoever did not attend, was to be denied the 
communion on Easter-day, ‘‘ Because,” as the canon words it, 
‘he paid not a due respect by abstinence to the passion of his 
Lord.” Indeed this day, as we have seen before, was one of 
those two great days which all Christians, in general, thought 
themselves obliged strictly to observe: even they who kept no 
other Lent, religiously observed these, as the days on which 
the Bridegroom was taken from them: and that seems to be 
the reason why this canon treats those with a little more 
severity who neglected the day of our Saviour’s Passion, be- 
cause they contemned the general custom and observation of 
Christians. 


rium erucis, quod ipse Dominus cunctis nuntiandum voluit, preedicari, atque 
indulgentiam criminum clara voce omnem populum postulare [przestolari] : ut 
peenitentize compunctione mundati, venerabilem diem Dominicze resurrectionis 
-remissis iniquitatibus suscipere mereamur ; corporisque ejus et sanguinis sacra- 
mentum mundi a peccatis sumamus. 

4 Cone. Tolet. IV. 6. viii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 1707.) Quidam in die ejusdem 
Dominicze passionis ad horam nonam jejunium solvunt, conviviis abutuntur, et 
dum sol ipse eodem die tenebris palliatus lumen subduxerit, ipsaque elementa 
turbata meestitiam totius mundi ostenderint, illi jejunium tanti diei polluunt, 
epulisque inserviunt. Et quia totum eumdem diem universalis ecclesia in 
mcerore et abstinentia peragit; quicumque in eo jejunium, preter parvulos, 
genes, et languidos, ante peractas indulgentiz preces, resolverit, a Paschali 
gaudio repellatur, nec in eo sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini per- 
cipiat, qui diem passionis ipsius per abstinentiam non honorat. 


236 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


Sect. XX XII.—Of the Saturday, or Great Sabbath before 
Easter. 


The Saturday, or Sabbath in this week, was commonly 
known by the name of the ‘Great Sabbath’, as we find it 
termed in Chrysostom, and others. It had many peculiarities 
belonging to it: for this was the only Sabbath throughout the 
year that the Greek Churches, and some of the Western, kept 
asa fast. All other Sabbaths, even in Lent, were observed as 
festivals, together with the Lord’s-day, as has been showed 
several times before: but this Great Sabbath was observed as 
a most solemn fast, which some joined with the fast of the 
preceding day, and made them both but one continued fast of 
superposition; and they who could not thus join both days 
together without some refreshment, yet observed the Saturday 
with great strictness, holding out their fast till after midnight, 
or cock-crowing in the morning. Thus we find it ordered in 
the Constitutions, conformable to the practice of the Church §: 
** Let as many as are able, fast the Friday and the Sabbath 
throughout, eating nothing till cock-crowing in the morning ; 
but if any cannot, τὰς δύο συνάπτειν ὁμοῦ, ‘join both days 
together in one continued fast,’ let him, however, keep the 
Sabbath a fast: for the Lord, speaking of himself, said, 
‘When the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them, in 
those days shall they fast.” So this day was kept an uni- 
versal fast over the whole Church: and they continued it not 
only till evening, but till cock-crowing in the morning, which 
was the supposed time of our Saviour’s resurrection. The 
preceding time of the night was spent in a vigil or pernoc- 
tation, when they assembled together to perform all parts of 
Divine service, psalmody, and reading the Scripture, the Law, 
the Prophets, and the Gospel, praying and preaching, and 
baptizing such of their catechumens as presented themselves 
to baptism: all which acts are particularly mentioned by the 
author of the Constitutions in his description of the Paschal 


τ Chrysostom. Epist. i. ad Innocent. Ἡμῶν αὐτὰ, &e. See p. 239, note (g). 

5. Constitut. lib. v. ὁ. xviii. See sect. xxv. note (n), p. 227. 

Ὁ Tbid. 6. xviii. (xix.) (Labbe, vol. i. p. 366, C 4.) Ῥῷ δὲ σαββάτῳ μέχρις 
ἀλεκτοροφωνίας παρατείνοντες, ἀπονηστίζεσθε ἐπιφωσκούσης μιᾶς σαββάτων, 


9 


Crap. 1. § 32. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 937 


vigil. The account of the several vigils observed in the Church 
has been given in a former Book": here I only take notice of 
this one, which was the most famous of all others, between the 
Great Sabbath and Easter-day. Of which there is frequent 
mention made in the ancient writers, Chrysostom”, Epipha- 
nius*, Palladius’, Gregory Nyssen’, and many others: parti- 
cularly Lactantius and St. Jerome tell us, they observed it 
upon a double account. ‘“ This is the night,” says Lactan- 
tius*, “which we observe with a pernoctation” [or watching 
all the night] “for the advent of our King and God : of which 
night there is a twofold reason to be given: because in this 
night our Lord was raised to life again after his Passion; and 
in the same he is expected to return to receive the kingdom of 
the world ;” that is, to come to judgment. St. Jerome says’, 


ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ κυριακὴ, ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας ἕως ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἀγρυπνοῦντες, καὶ 
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ συναθροιζόμενοι, γρηγορεῖτε, προσευχόμενοι καὶ 
δεόμενοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν τῇ διανυκτερεύσει ὑμῶν: ἀναγινώσκοντες τὸν νόμον, 
τοὺς προφήτας, τοὺς ψαλμοὺς, μέχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κραυγῆς" καὶ βαπ- 
τίσαντες ὑμῶν τοὺς κατηχουμένους, καὶ ἀναγνόντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐν φόβῳ 
καὶ τρόμῳ, καὶ προσλαλήσαντες τῷ λαῷ τὰ πρὸς σωτηρίαν, παύσασθε τοῦ 
πένθους ὑμῶν. 

u Book xiii. chap. ix. sect. iv. vol. iv. p. 360. 

W Chrysostom. Epist. i. ad Innocent. (Bened. vol. iii. p. 515.) Hom. xxx. in 
Genes. [Not. Nihil hic invenio de isto praecipue pervigilio ; p. autem 329, (edit. 
Francof.) habentur queedam de vigiliis magnze hebdomadis in genere.— 
Grischov.] See Book xiii. chap. ix. sect. iv. note (i), vol. iv. p. 360. 

x Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. sect. xxii. (Colon, 1682. vol. i. p. 1105, C 11.) "Ev 
τισι δὲ τόποις τὴν μετὰ THY πέμπτην ἀγρυπνοῦσιν, ἐπιφώσκουσαν εἰς τὸ 
προσάββατον, καὶ τὴν κυριακὴν μόνας. 

y Pallad. Vit. Chrysostom. ο. ix. (Bened. 1718. vol. xiii. p. 33, Β 6.) Ἔν 
τούτοις ἐπέστη ἡ τοῦ: μεγάλου σαββάτου ἡμέρα, ἐν y ὁ σωτὴρ σταυρωθεὶς 
ἐσκύλευσεν τὸν ἄδην" . - - οἱ μέν τοι πρεσβύτεροι ᾿Ιωάννου, οἱ τὸν θεῖον 
ἔχοντες φόβον, ἐν τῷ δημοσίῳ λούτρῳ τῷ ἐπικαλουμένῳ Κωνσταντιαναῖς, 
τοὺς λαοὺς συναγαγόντες, εἶχόν TE τὰς ἀγρυπνίας" οἱ μὲν τὰ θεῖα λόγια 
ἀναγινώσκοντες" οἱ δὲ βαπτίζοντες τοὺς κατηχηθέντας, ὡς εἰκὸς διὰ τὸ 
πάσχα. 

z Gregor. Nyssen. Orat. in Resurrect. Domini. [Not. Vaga allegatio. Nys- 
senus quinque habet orationes de hoe argumento, quarum priores tres bene 
longze sunt, quas, lector ipse, si volet, evolvat.—Grischov. ] 

a Lactant. lib. vii. 6. xix. (Vesont. 1838. p. 213.) Heee est nox, quee a nobis 
propter adventum regis ac Dei nostri perviligio celebratur: cujus noctis duplex 
ratio est, quod in ea et vitam tum recepit, quum passus est; et postea regnum 
orbis terree recepturus est. 

Ὁ Hieronom, in Matth. xxv. 6. (Venet. 1769. vol. vii. p. 203.) Traditio 


238 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book ΧΧΙ. 


“It was a tradition among the Jews, that Christ would come 
at midnight, as he did upon the Egyptians at the time of the 
Passover:” and thence, he thinks, “the apostolical custom 
came, not to dismiss the people on the Paschal vigil before 
midnight, expecting the coming of Christ: after which time, 
presuming upon security, they keep the day a festival.” Huse- 
bius says’, ‘‘ In the time of Constantine this vigil was kept 
with great pomp: for he set up lofty pillars of wax, to burn as 
torches, all over the city, and lamps burning in all places, so 
that the night seemed to outshine the sun at noon-day.” Nazi- 
anzen also speaks of this custom of setting up lamps and 
torches both in the churches and their own private houses : 
** Which,” he says’, ‘‘ they did as a ‘ prodromus,’ or ‘ forerun- 
ner’ of that great light, the Sun of Righteousness, arising on 
the world on Easter-day.” Tertullian intimates, that this 
vigil was solemnly kept in his time by all sorts of people, by 
women as well as men: for, writing against the marriage of 
Christian women with heathens, among other arguments he 
puts this question to them, to dissuade them from such dan- 


Judzeorum est, Christum media nocte venturum in similitudinem Aigyptii 
temporis, quando Pascha celebratum est, et exterminator venit, et Dominus 
super tabernacula transiit, et sanguine agni postes nostrarum frontium conse- 
crati sunt. Unde reor et traditionem apostolicam permansisse, ut in die vigi- 
liarum Pascheze, ante noctis dimidium populos dimittere non liceat, exspectantes 
adventum Christi. Et postquam illud tempus transierit, securitate preesumta, 
festum cuncti agunt diem. 

¢ Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iv. 6. xxii. (Vales. Amstel. 1695. p. 443, A 3.) 
(Reading, p. 1720. p. 637,11.) Τὴν δὲ ἱερὰν διανυκτέρευσιν μετέβαλλεν εἰς 
ἡμερινὰ φῶτα, κηροῦ κίονας ὑψηλοτάτους καθ᾽ ὕλης ἐξαπτόντων τῆς πόλεως 
τῶν ἐπὶ τούτῳ τεταγμένων" λαμπάδες δ᾽ ἦσαν πυρὸς, πάντα φωτίζουσαι 
τόπον ὡς λαμπρᾶς ἡμέρας τηλαυγεστέραν τὴν μυστικὴν διανυκτέρευσιν 
ἀποτελεῖσθαι.---ΟὯρ. lvii, ᾿Ηδὴ δ᾽ ἡ μεγάλη τοῦ πάσχα ἑορτὴ παρῆν" ἐν 
ὁ βασιλεὺς τῷ Θεῷ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀποδιδοὺς, συνδιενυκτέρευσε τοῖς ἄλλοις. 

4 Nazianz. Orat. xlii. de Pasch. (Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 846, B.) (Colon. 
1690. p. 676, D 2.) Καλὴ μὲν ἡ χθὲς ἡμῖν λαμπροφορία καὶ φωταγωγία, ἣν 
ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ συνεστησάμεθα: πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μικροῦ καὶ ἀξία 
πᾶσα, δαψιλεῖ τῷ πυρὶ τὴν νύκτα καταφωτίζοντες, καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου φωτὸς 
ἀντίτυπος᾽ ὅσον τε οὐρανὸς ἄνωθεν φρυκτωρεῖ, κόσμον ὅλον αὐγαάζων τοῖς 
παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κάλλεσι, καὶ ὅσον ὑπερουράνιον, ἔν τε ᾿Αγγέλοις τῇ πρώτῃ 
φωτεινῇ φύσει μετὰ τὴν πρώτην, τῷ ἐκεῖθεν πηγάζεσθαι, καὶ ὕσον ἐν τῇ 
Τριάδι, παρ᾽ ἧς φῶς ἅπαν συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἀμερίστου φωτὸς μεριζόμενον καὶ 
τιμώμενον. καλλίων δὲ ἡ σήμερον καὶ περιφανεστέρα' bow χθὲς μὲν πρόδρο- 
μον ἣν τοῦ μεγάλου φωτὸς ἀνισταμένου τὸ φῶς, καὶ οἷον εὐφροσύνη τις 


Cnap. I. § 32. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 939 


gerous engagements®: ‘“ What unbelieving husband will be 
content to let his wife be absent from him all night at the cele- 
bration of the Paschal vigil?” And it is plain, from Socrates, 
that the sectaries, as well as the Catholics, had this night in 
ereat veneration : for it was upon one of these Paschal vigils‘, 
that the Sabbatians, who were a subdivision of the Novatian 
schismatics, were seized with such a panic terror in the night, 
that flying in a strange confusion through a strait passage 
from the place where they were met, they pressed so hard 
upon one another, that threescore and ten of them were trod- 
den to death. 

This night was famous above all others for baptizing of 
catechumens, as we learn not only from the general account 
given of the ancient time of baptizing, as fixed chiefly to the 
Paschal solemnity: but more particularly from those sad rela- 
tions made by Chrysostom’ and Palladius? of the barbarous 


προεύρτιος" σήμερον δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτὴν ἑορτάζομεν, οὐκ ἔτι ἐλπιζομέ- 
νην, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη γεγεννημένην, καὶ κόσμον ὅλον ἑαυτῇ συνάγουσαν. 

e Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. ii. 6. iv. (Paris. 1664. p. 108, D 5.) Quis solennibus 
Paschze abnoctantem securus sustinebit ? 

f Soerat. lib. vii. ¢. v. (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. p. 279, C 3.) (Reading, 
p- 351—353.) Mer’ ob πολὺ τὴν ἐκ προλήψεως ἑορτὴν ἐπετέλει [ὁ Σαββά- 
τιος 7 καὶ συνέῤῥεον πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξ ἔθους πολλοί' καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἔθους παννυ- 
χίδα ποιούντων, θόρυβός τις δαιμόνιος ἐνέπεσεν εἰς αὐτοὺς, ὡς ἄρα Σισίννιος 
ὁ αὐτῶν ἐπίσκοπος σὺν πολλῷ πλήθει ἔρχεται κατ᾽ αὐτῶν" καὶ ταραχῆς 
γενομένης, οἷα εἰκὸς, ἐν νυκτὶ καὶ στενῷ τόπῳ ἀποληφθέντες, ἑαυτοὺς συν- 
ἐτριψαν" ὡς ἀπολέσθαι ἐξ αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα ἀνθρώπους. 

8. Chrysostom. Epist. i. ad Innocent. (Bened. 1718. vol. iii. p. 518, E.) Ἡμῶν 
αὐτὰ, καθάπερ ἔμπροσθεν εἶπον, προτεινόντων, ἀθρόον στρατιωτικὸν πλῆθος 
αὐτῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ σαββάτῳ, πρὸς ἑσπέραν λοιπὸν τῆς ἡμέρας ἐπιγινομένης, 
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐπεισελθὸν, τὸν κλῆρον ἅπαντα τὸν σὺν ἡμῖν πρὸς βίαν 
ἐξέβαλον, καὶ ὅπλοις τὸ βῆμα περιεστοίχιστο' καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν εὐκτηρίων 
οἴκων πρὸς τὸ βάπτισμα ἀποδυσάμεναι κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν καιρὸν, γυμναὶ 
ἔφυγον ὑπὸ τοῦ φόβου τῆς χαλεπῆς ταύτης ἐφόδου. οὐδὲ τὴν πρέπουσαν 
γυναιξὶν εὐσχημοσύνην συγχωρούμεναι περιθέσθαι: πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ τραύματα 
δεξάμεναι ἐξεβάλλοντο, καὶ αἵματος at κολυμβῆθραι ἐπληροῦντο, καὶ τὰ 
ἱερὰ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱμάτων ἐφοινίσσετο νάματα. 

h Pallad. Vit. Chrysostom. ec. ix. (Bened. vol. xiii. p. 34, B 5.) ΠΠαρατείνουσι 
yap τὸν λαὸν ἐν τοῖς μέρεσιν ἡμῶν ἕως ἀλέκτορος πρώτου, ἔχων θρᾶκας 
ξιφήρεις νεοστρατεύτους κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ησαῦ τετρακοσίους, ἀναιδεῖς περισσῶς, 
ἐπεπήδησεν αἰφνίδιον κατὰ τὴν νύκτα, σὺν τοῖς ἐπιδεικνύουσι κληρικοῖς καὶ τοῖς 
στρατιώταις ἱταμῶς, ὡς ἅτε λύκος, σιδήρῳ στίλβοντι διασχίσας τοὺς ὄχλους" 
χωρήσας δ᾽ ἔνδον τῶν μακαρίων ὑδάτων ἐπὶ κωλύσει τῶν μυουμένων τὴν 


240 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


invasion of Chrysostom’s church, and the assaults made upon 
him, and his clergy and people, as they were assembled together 
this night to keep the Paschal vigil, and baptize the catechu- 
mens. Where, among other grievous acts of hostility, they 
take notice of this one unparalleled instance of indecent ecru- 
elty ; that the enemy forced the women-catechumens, who were 
divested, in order to baptism, to fly away naked, and slew 
many of them in the very baptisteries, making the holy fonts 
swim with blood. And yet in this one night, notwithstanding 
the tumult, three thousand persons were baptized, as is parti- 
cularly noted by Palladius. From whence it is easy to con- 
clude, that this night was a celebrated time of baptism; and 
that as the penitents were restored the day before to the com- 
munion, which they had lost; so on this day the catechumens 
were made complete Christians, and admitted to the communion, 
which they never had before, and both, in order to participate 
of the holy eucharist on Easter-day. So we have seen the whole 
practice of the Church from first to last, in relation to the ob- 
servation of Lent, ar the first great anniversary fast of forty 
days. 


ἀνάστασιν τοῦ σωτῆρος" Kai τῷ μὲν διακόνῳ θρασέως ἐντιναχθεὶς, τὰ 
σύμβολα ἐκχέει: τοὺς δὲ πρεσβυτέρους ἤδη που καὶ ἡλικιώτας, ῥοπάλοις 
κατὰ κρανίου παίσας, αἵματι κιρνᾷ τὴν κολυμβήθραν" τότε ἣν ἰδεῖν τὴν 
ἀγγελικὴν ἐκείνην νύκτα, ἐν ἢ καὶ δαίμονες πίπτουσι ἐπτηχότες, εἰς λαβύ- 
ρινθον μεταβληθεῖσαν. γυμναὶ γὰρ γυναῖκες σὺν τοῖς ἀνδράσι δρασμῷ 
ἐχρῶντο, φόβῳ τοῦ σφαγῆναι ἢ ἀσχημονῆσαι, τὸν ἀσχήμονα ἀσπαζόμεναι 
δρόμον" . .. τῇ ἐπαύριον γοῦν ἐξελθὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς, τοῦ γυμνασθῆναι ἐν τῷ 
παρακειμένῳ πεδίῳ, εἶδεν τὴν ἄσπερον γῆν, τὴν περὶ τὸ Πέμπτον, λευχει- 
μονοῦσαν" καὶ ἐκπλαγεὶς ἐπὶ τῇ θέᾳ τοῦ ἄνθους τῶν νεοφωτίστων" ἧσαν γὰρ 
ἀμφὶ τοὺς τρισχιλίους ἤρετο παρὰ τῶν δορυφόρων" τίς ἡ λογὰς τῶν ἐκεῖ 
συνηθροισμένων, K. T. X. 


Cuap. Il. $1. CHRISTEFAN CHURCH. DAA 


CHAPTER II. 


OF THE FASTS OF THE FOUR SEASONS, OF MONTHLY FASTS, 
AND THE ORIGINAL OF EMBER-WEEKS AND ROGATION- 
DAYS. 


Sect. I.— The Fast of March, or the first Month, the same with 
the Lent-Fast. 
THE next anniversary fasting-days were those which were 
called ‘jejunia quatuor temporum, ‘the fasts of the four 
seasons of the year.’ These were called the fasts of the first, 
fourth, seventh, and tenth months, or the fasts of the spring, 
summer, autumn, and winter, observed in March, June, Sep- 
tember, and December, which were accounted the beginning 
of the four several seasons of the year. These were at first 
designed, not to be the seasons of ordination, but to beg a 
blessing of God upon the several seasons of the year, or to 
return thanks for the benefits received in each of them; or to 
exercise and purify both body and soul in a more particular 
manner, at the return of these certain terms of stricter disci- 
pline and more extraordinary devotion. One of the first that 
speaks formally of these fasts, under the name and number of 
the four seasons, is Pope Leo, in his Sermons, about the year 
450, in one of which he thus recounts them?: “ The ecclesi- 
astical fasts are so distributed through the whole year, that 
there is a law of abstinence affixed to all the four seasons: for 
we keep the spring fast in Lent, the summer fast in Pentecost, 
the autumnal fast in the seventh month, and the winter fast in 
the tenth month.” In another place he says», ‘“‘ These fasts 


a Leo, Serm. viii. de Jejunio Decimi Mensis. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 59.) 
(Bibl. Patr. tom. vii. p. 991, H. edit. Lugd. 1677.) Jejunia ecclesiastica ita per 
totius anni circulum distributa sunt, ut lex abstinentize omnibus sit adscripta 
temporibus. Siquidem jejunium vernum in Quadragesima, cestivum in Pente- 
coste, autumnale in mense septimo, hiemale autem in hoe, qui est decimus, 
celebramus. (Lugd. 1700. vol. i. p. 67.) 

Ὁ Thid. vii. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. p. 55.) Preesidia [militice Christianze] sane- 
tificandis mentibus nostris atque corporibus divinitus instituta, ideo cum 

VOL. VII. R 


242 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΙ. 


are incessantly renewed with the course of days and times, 
that the medicinal power of them may put us in mind of our 
infirmities.” Philastrius also speaks of four noted annual fasts 
kept by the Church in the course of the year; but, instead of 
the fast of September he puts the fast of Epiphany, reckoning 
them in this order®: ‘“'The Church celebrates four fasts in 
the year; the first before the Nativity, the second before the 
Pasch, the third before Epiphany, and the fourth in Pentecost.” 
So that these four fasts were not exactly the same in the time 
of Philastrius, that they were in the time of Pope Leo. The 
spring fast, or the fast before Easter, is evidently the Lent-fast, 
of which we have spoken before : for as yet there was no parti- 
cular week in Lent set aside for ordinations, to make a distinct 
fast of it, as we shall see hereafter. 


Secr. I1.—The Fast of Pentecost. 


The fast of Pentecost, which Leo calls the ‘summer-fast,’ 
is mentioned also by Athanasius: for in his Apology to Con- 
stantius he says‘, “ The people in the week, after the holy 
Pentecost, having finished their fast, went to pray in the 
cemetery,” or church-yard. The Council of Girone, in Spain®, 
fixes this to the week after Pentecost: so that after the 
solemnity of that festival was over, a three days’ fast was to be 
kept on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, in the week imme- 


dierum temporumque curriculis sine cessatione reparantur, ut infirmitatum nos- 
trarum ipsa nos medicina commoneat.— Id. Serm. ix. (Venet. 1753. vol. i. 
p- 365.) (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. vii. p. 1060, E.) Ideo ipsa continentize observan- 
tia quatuor est adsignata temporibus, ut in id ipsum totius anni redeunte decursu 
cognosceremus, nos indesinenter purificationibus indigere; semperque esse 
nitendum, dum hujus vite varietate jactamur, ut peccatum, quod fragilitate 
carnis et cupiditatum pollutione contrahitur, jejuniis atque eleemosynis 
deleatur. 

ὁ Philastr. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. v. p. 723, G10.) Per annum quatuor 
jejunia in ecclesia celebrantur. In Natali primum, deinde in Pascha, tertium 
in Epiphania, quartum in Pentecoste: ab Adscensione inde usque ad Pente- 
costen diebus decem. 

4 Athanas. Apol. de Fuga. (Colon. 1686. tom. i. p. 704.) (p. 323, C. Paris. 
1698.) Ty γὰρ ἑβδομάδι μετὰ τὴν ἁγίαν πεντηκοστὴν ὁ λαὸς νηστεύσας 
ἐξῆλθε περὶ τὸ κοιμητήριον εὔξασθαι. 

© Cone. Gerund. ¢. ii. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1568.) De litania, ut, expleta solen- 
nitate Pentecostes, sequens [in sequenti] septimana, a quinta feria usque in 
Sabbatum, per hoe triduum abstinentia celebretur. 


Cuap. 11. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. IAS 


diately following. The second Council of Tours‘ appoints the 
whole week after Pentecost to be kept an exact fast by those 
of the monastic life: but whether this was in the week follow- 
ing Whit-Sunday, or the week after that, appears not from 
those canons. Neither were these fasts of the four seasons so 
fixed to any certain week, but that they sometimes varied a 
week or more in their observation, as appears from the Council 
of Salegunstade£, which gives particular directions how to 
order and accommodate these variations. And in one of our 
English Councils, held at Oxford, under Stephen Langton 
(an. 1222), which settles the fasts of the four seasons, it is in- 
timated, ‘‘ That the fast of Pentecost was differently observed 
by many: for some kept it in the week after the Litanies, or 
Rogation-days, and others in the week of Pentecost :” which 
shows, that there was no universal rule or tradition about this 
fast in the Church. 


Secr. I1].—The Fast of the Seventh Month, or the Autumnal Fast. 
The fast of the seventh month, or the autumnal fast, is not 


f Cone. Turon. II. ¢. xvii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 856.) Post Quinquagesimam 
tota hebdomade ex asse jejunent. 

& Cone. Salegunstad. an. 1022. ¢. ii. (Labbe, vol. ix. p. 845.) De incerto 
jejunio quatuor temporum hance certitudinem statuimus, ut si Kalendz Martii 
in guarta feria sive antea evenerint, eadem hebdomada jejunium celebretur. Si 
autem Kalendse Martii in quintam feriam aut sextam aut Sabbatum distendun- 
tur, in sequentem hebdomadam jejunium differatur. Simili quoque modo si 
Kalende Junii in quartam feriam, aut antea evenerint, in subsequente hebdo- 
mada jejunium celebretur. Et si in quintam feriam aut sextam aut Sabbatum 
contigerint, jejunium in tertiam hebdomadam reservetur. Et hoe sciendum est, 
quod si quando jejunium mensis Junii in vigilia Pentecostes secundum preedic- 
tam regulam evenerit, non ibi celebrandum erit, sed in ipsa hebdomada solenni 
Pentecostes: et tune propter solennitatem Spiritus Sancti, diaconus Dalmaticis 
induatur, et Alleluia cantetur, et, Flectamus genua, non dicatur. Eodem modo 
de Septembris jejunio constitutum est, ut si Kalendze Septembris in quarta feria 
evenerint, aut antea, jejunium in tertia hebdomada celebretur: et si in quinta 
aut sexta aut Sabbato contigerint, in quarta hebdomada jejunandum erit. In 
Decembri illud observandum erit, ut proximo Sabbato ante vigiliam natalis 
Domini celebretur jejunium: quia si vigilia in Sabbato evenerit, simul vigiliam 
et jejunium celebrare non convenit. 

h Cone. Oxon. ὁ. viii. (Labbe, vol. xi. p. 275, E.) In Martio prima hebdomada 
jejunandum est feria quarta, et sexta, et Sabbato. In Junio in secunda, quod 
dupliciter observatur a pluribus; in prima hebdomada post litanias, aut in 
hebdomada Pentecostes. In Septembri per tres dies. In proxima septimana 
integra ante natalem Domini. 


R 2 


244 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


so much as mentioned by Philastrius, nor any other writer 
that I know of, before Pope Leo. But after him Gelasiusi 
speaks of it as one of the four solemn times of ordination, 
which were always accompanied with fasting from the time 
that they were first introduced into the Church: but this was 
not till after the time of Pope Leo!. For though he often 
speaks of the fast of September, or the seventh month, yet he 
never so much as intimates that it was a stated time of ordi- 
nation, but assigns other reasons for it; because it was fit 
men should purge themselves from sin at the return of every 
various season of the year. 


Secr. 1V.—The Advent, or Nativity-Fast, called the Fast of 
December, or the Tenth Month. 


The fast of December, or the tenth month, by some called 
the Advent, or Nativity-fast, is mentioned by Philastrius as 
one of the four solemn fasts of the Church. This fast, an- 
ciently, was kept from the festival of St. Martin till Christ- 
mas-day, three days in the week, Mondays, Wednesdays, and 
Fridays, as we find in the first Council of Mascon, which 
orders, that it should be observed after the manner of Lent ; 
that is, that the oblation should not be celebrated on* those 
days, and that the canons should be read at this time, that no 
one might pretend ignorance for the non-observance of them. 
The second Council of Tours! appoints the monks to fast every 
day during this season: but in the Councils of Salegunstade ™ 


i Gelas. Epist. ix. ad Episcopos Lucanize, ¢. xi. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1191.) Or- 
dinationes presbyterorum et diaconorum, nisi certis temporibus et diebus exer- 
ceri non debent, id est, quarti mensis jejunio, septimi et decimi, sed et etiam 
quadragesimalis initii ac mediana Quadragesimze die, Sabbati jejunio circa 
vesperam noverint celebrandas. 

J Leo, Serm. ix. de Jejun. Mensis Septimi. See sect. i. note (b). 

K Cone. Matiseon. I. e. ix. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 968.) Ut a feria 5. Martini 
usque ad natale Domini, secunda, quarta, et sexta Sabbati jejunetur, et sacri- 
ficia quadragesimali debeant ordine celebrari. In quibus diebus canones legen- 
dos esse speciali definitione sancimus, ut nullus se fateatur per ignorantiam 
deliquisse. 

1 Cone. Turon. II. 6. xvii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 856.) De Decembri usque ad 
natale Domini omni die jejunent. 

m Cone. Salegunstad. ec. ii. (Labbe, vol. ix. p. 845.) In Decembri illud obser- 
vandum erit, ut proximo Sabbato ante vigiliam natalis Domini celebretur 
jejunium. 


Cusp. 11. § 5, 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. IAG 


and Oxford", this fast is reduced to the week immediately 
before Christmas. 


Secr. V.—The Fast at Epiphany. 


Besides these fasts at the four seasons, Philastrius mentions 
a fast before Epiphany, or rather, as has been observed before, 
puts it in the room of the fast of September. The second 
Council of Tours takes notice of this, and tells us°, ‘It was 
a fast of three days, and that it was appointed particularly, at 
that time, in opposition to the heathen festivals, which they 
were used to observe with a great deal of corruption and licen- 
tious revellings for three days together: which three days, 
therefore, the fathers rather chose to make days of abstinence 
and private Litanies, to restrain the people from running into 
the extravagant riots and excesses of the heathen: so that 
New-year’s-day, or Circumcision, was rather kept as a fast 
than a festival, for several ages, in the Church. For it ap- 
pears, from the foresaid council, that the Kalends of January 
was included in the three days, which was called the Epiphany- 
fast. 


Secr. VI.—Of Monthly Feasts. 


In some places they had also monthly fasts throughout the 
year, except in the two months of July and August. Thus it 
was in Spain, by an order of the Council of Eliberis, which 
orders?, “that extraordinary fasts should be celebrated every 
month, except those two, because of the sickliness of the sea- 


” 


son.” That these were something more than the ordinary fasts 
of Wednesday and Friday, seems evident from the name that is 
given them of fasts of superposition, which in this place de- 
notes not the length of the fast, but the newness of the impo- 


n Cone. Oxon. 6. viii. (Labbe, vol. xi. p. 275.) In proxima septimana integra 
ante natalem Domini [jejunandum]. 

° Cone. Turon. If. 6. xviii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 856.) Inter natale Domini et 
Epiphaniam omni die festivitates sunt. Excipitur tridwum illud, quo ad cal- 
candam gentilium consuetudinem patres nostri statuerunt privatas in Kalendis 
Januariis fieri litanias, ete. 

P Cone. Liber. c. xxiii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 973.) Jejuniorum superpositiones 
per singulos menses placuit celebrari, exceptis diebus duorum mensium Julii et 
Augusti, ob quorumdam infirmitatem. 


946 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


sition, as Albaspinzeus observes upon the place; though what 
sort of fasts they were is not very easy to determine. If I 
may be allowed to conjecture in an obscure matter, I should 
conclude this superposition of fasts was the addition of Monday 
to Wednesday and Friday, because we find it so in one of the 
French* councils, which, ordering the manner of fasting in 
several months of the year for those of the ascetic life, ap- 
points them to fast three times a-week, viz.on Monday, Wed- 
nesday, and Friday, from Pentecost till August ; and so again 
for the months of September, October, and November. But 
August is excepted, because in this month every day almost 
was celebrated as the festival of some martyr’, with the mani- 
cation, or morning-service, proper to a festival. Besides, that 
the Council of Eliberis itself, in another canon, introducing 
the Saturday-fast into Spain, which before was used to be a 
festival, for that reason calls it a fast of superposition, be- 
cause it was newly taken into use in Spain, after the example 
of the Church of Rome. But if this conjecture about monthly 
and superpository fasts be not satisfactory, every reader is at 
liberty to judge for himself upon better light and information. 


Secr. VII.—The Original of the Four Ember- Weeks, or 
Ordination-Fasts. 


Some think the ember-weeks, or ordination-fasts, were the 
same with the fasts of the four seasons, and therefore com- 
monly take it for granted, that what proves the one, proves 


4 Albaspin. in loe. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 993.) Jejunia ‘superponere’ est jejunia 
de novo imponere et indicere: quee autem fuerint illa jejunia, quze singulis men- 
sibus, preeter stationes ferise sextee et Sabbati, superimposita essent in Hispania, 
non facile est dicere, quum ea peculiari quadam lege et consuetudine celebra- 
rentur in illa provincia. 

* Cone. Turon. IT. ¢. xviii. (xvii.) (Labbe, vol. v. p. 856.) Post Quinquagesi- 
mam tota hebdomade ex asse [exacte] jejunent. Postea usque ad Kalendas 
Augusti ter in septimana jejunent, secunda, quarta, et sexta die, exceptis his, 
qui aliqua infirmitate constricti sunt. In Augusto, quia quotidie missse sane- 
torum sunt, prandium habeant. In Septembri toto, et Octobri, et Novembri, 
sicut prius dictum est, ter in septimana. 

δ Cone. Turon. IT. ὁ. xix. (xviii.) (Labbe, vol. v. p. 858, B 5.) Toto Augusto 
manicationes fiant, quia festivitates sunt et missee Sanctorum. 

* Cone. Mliber. ὁ. xxvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 973.) Errorem placuit corrigi, ut 
omni Sabbati die jejuniorum superpositionem celebremus. 


Cuar. II. § 7. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 947 


the other also. But I have formerly had occasion to show *, 
that for several ages there were no certain times of ordination 
settled by the Church ; but that she ordained persons to all 
offices and degrees at any time, as the necessity of affairs re- 
quired. And when the fasts of the four seasons were first 
instituted, they were appointed for other ends, and not upon 
the account of ordinations: because the ordinations in the 
Church of Rome were still performed in December only, after 
the fasts of the four seasons were in use, till Simplicius, about 
the year 467, added February to December. This is noted 
by Amalarius Fortunatus’, as I have showed before: and 
Mr. Wharton tells us * he found the same remark made by 
Ivo Carnotensis, in a manuscript book of his Ecclesiastical 
Offices. The Council of Mentz, in the time of Charles the 
Great, mentions the fasts of the four seasons * ; and fixes them 
to the first week in March, the second week in June, the third 
week in September, and the week in December that comes 
immediately before Christmas-day: but yet says nothing of 
their being ember weeks, or the fasts of ordination. And 
some think Gregory VII. was the first that ordered the ordi- 
nation-fasts, and the fasts of the four seasons, to concur exactly 
together ; before which time, as the seasons of ordination were 
arbitrary and movable, so were the fasts that depended on 
them, which were always of use in the Church, though not 
always fixed to four certain seasons. 


u Vol. i. p. 516. book iv. chap. vi. sect. vi. 

v Amalar. de Offic. Eccles. lib. ii. 6. i. (Max. B. V. P. vol. xiv. p. 968, C 7.) 
Primi apostoli, semper in Decembrio mense, in quo nativitas Domini nostri Jesu 
Christi celebratur, consecrationes ministrabant, usque ad Simplicium, qui fuit a 
B. Petro quadragesimus nonus. Ipse primus sacravit in Februario. 

Ww Wharton, Auctar. ad Usser. Hist. Dogmat. de Scriptura et Sacris Vernacu- 
lis, p. 363. Omnes apostolicos a Beato Petro usque ad Simplicium papam ordi- 
nationes tantum in jejunio Decembris celebrasse adnotavit Ivo Carnotensis in 
libro de Ecelesiasticis Officiis MS. 

x Cone. Mogunt. ὁ. xxxiv. (Labbe, vol. vii. p. 1249.) Constituimus, ut 
quatuor tempora anni ab omnibus cum jejunio observentur, id est, in mense 
Martio hebdomada prima: et feria iv. et vi. et Sabbato veniant omnes ad eccle- 
siam, hora nona, cum litaniis ad missarum solennia. Similiter in mense Junio 
hebdomada secunda, feria iv. et vi. et Sabbato jejunetur usque ad horam nonam, 
et a carne ab omnibus abstineatur. Similiter in mense Septembrio tertia, et in 
mense Decembrio hebdomada, que fuerit plena ante vigiliam natalis Domini 
sieut est in Romana ecclesia traditum. 


DAS THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


Secr. VITI.—The Original of the Rogation-Fast. 


About the middle of the fifth century, there was a new fast 
begun in France, by Mamercus, bishop of Vienna, under the 
name of the ‘litany,’ or ‘rogation-days,’ which were the three 
days immediately before Ascension-day, in the middle of Pen- 
tecost. The affixing of a fast to these days was altogether 
new, because heretofore the whole fifty days of Pentecost were 
one entire festival, and all fasting and kneeling were prohi- 
bited at this time, as has been showed in the last Book’. 
Supplications, or litanies, were in use before upon extraordi- 
nary occasions, but Mamercus was the first that fixed them 
to these days: and many Churches in the West followed his 
example, as Sidonius Apollinaris informs us? But the 
Spanish Churches chose rather to stick by the old custom 
of keeping Pentecost an entire festival: and therefore the 
Council of Girone ordered that this fast of the rogation-days 
should rather be kept in the week after Pentecost?; and 
appointed another such litany, or rogation-fast, to be kept on 
the Kalends, or first day of November, which is now become 
the festival of All Saints, transferred from Trinity-Sunday. 
The fifth and sixth Councils of Toledo appointed another 


Υ See above, book xx. chap. vi. p. 122. 

2 Sidon. lib, v. ep. xiv. (Paris. 1609. p. 352.) Quidquid illud est, quod vel 
otio, vel negotio vacas, in urbem tamen rogationum contemplatione revocabere : 
quorum nobis solennitatem primus Mamercus pater, et pontifex, reverentissimo 
exemplo, utilissimo experimento, inyenit, instituit, invexit. Erant quidem prius 
(quod salva fidei pace sit dictum) vagze, tepentes, infrequentesque, utque sic 
dixerim, obscitabundze supplicationes, quae szepe interpellantium prandiorum 
obicibus hebetabantur, maxime aut imbres, aut serenitatem deprecaturze, ad 
quas (ut nihil amplius dicam) figulo pariter atque hortulano non oportuit con- 
venire. In his autem, quas suprafatus summus sacerdos nobis et protulit pari- 
Id. lib. vii. Epist. i. ad 


Mamercum., (p. 409.) Solo invectarum te auctore Rogationum palpamur auxilio, 


ter et contulit, jeyunatur, oratur, psallitur, fletur. 





quibus inchoandis instituendisque populus Arvernus, etsi non effectu pari, 
adfectu certe non impari coepit initiari. 

@ Cone. Gerund, ¢, ii. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1568.) De litania, ut expleta solen- 
nitate Pentecostes, sequens(ti) septimana, a quinta feria usque in Sabbatum, per 
hoe triduum abstinentia celebretur.—Can. iii. Item secundze litanize faciendee 
sunt Kalendis Novembris, ea tamen conditione servata, ut si iisdem diebus 
Dominica intercesserit, in alia hebdomada, secundum prioris abstinentize obser- 
vantiam, 2 quinta feria incipiantur, et in Sabbat-o(-i) vespere missa facta finian- 
tur. Quibus tamen dichus a carnibus et a vino abstinendum deerevimus, 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. QAO 


litany-fast to be kept on the Ides, or thirteenth day of Decem- 
ber®. And the seventeenth Council of Toledo (an. 694) made 
a more gencral decree ὁ, “that such litanies, or rogations, 
should be used in every month throughout the year.” And 
under this head of monthly fasts, we may conclude that the 
rogation-fast of Pentecost, though not received at first, might 
perhaps come at last to be admitted in the Spanish Churches: 
which yet is not indisputably certain, because Walafridus 
Strabo, who lived a whole age after this Council, observes of 
them‘, ‘that they refused to keep any fast in Pentecost, but 
put it off till afterward, because it is written, ‘ The children of 
the bride-chamber cannot fast, so long as the bridegroom is 
with them.” But whether he made this observation of the 
Spanish Church as it was in his own time, or as it was in 
former times, when the Council of Girone forbade all fasting 
in Pentecost, is a little doubtful: and, therefore, I content 
myself with bare hinting the thing here®, and leave it as a 


Ὁ Cone. Tolet. V. 6. i. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 1735.) Scilicet ut in euncto regno a 
Deo sibi concesso specialis et propria heee religiosa omni tempore teneatur 
observantia, ut a die Iduum Decembrium litaniz triduo usque [ubique] annua 
successione peragantur, et indulgentia delictorum lacrimis impetretur, ete. 
Ibid. VI. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1742.) Universalis auctoritate censemus concilii, ut 
hi dies litaniarum, qui in synodo przemissa sunt instituti, eodem in tempore, quo 
jussi sunt excoli, annuo recursu omni observatione habeantur celeberrimi, ut 
pro illis, quibus nune usque simul implicati sumus delictis, sit nostra expiatio 





ante oculos Dei omnipotentis. 

ὁ Tbid. XVII. 6. vi. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1367.) Quamquam priscorum Patrum 
institutio, per totum annum, per singulorum mensium cursum, litaniarum yota 
decreverit persolvend-wm(a), nee tamen specialiter pro quibus causis id ipsum 
sit peragendum, tamen, quia cooperante humani generis adversario, multa in- 
olevit oberrandi consuctudo, et jurisjurandi transgressio, ideo secundum Evan- 
gelistam, qui ait: § Vigilate et orate, ne intretis in tentationem,’ in commune 
statuentes decernimus, ut deinceps per totum annum, in cunctis duodecim men- 
sibus, per universas Hispanize et Galliarum provincias, pro statu ecclesize Dei, 
pro incolumitate principis nostri, atque salvatione populi, et indulgentia totius 
peecati, et a cunctorum fidelium cordibus expulsione diaboli, exomologeses votis 
gliscentibus celebrentur: quatenus dum generalem omnipotens Dominus afflic- 
tionem perspexerit, et delictis omnibus miseratus indulgeat, et seevientis diaboli 
incitamenta ab animis omnium procul efficiat. 

d Strabo de Offic. Eccles. ὁ. xxviii. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. xv. p. 198, A 4.) 
Hispani, propter hoc, quod seriptum est, ‘ Non possunt filii sponsi lugere, quam- 
diu cum illis est sponsus,’ infra Quinquagesimam Paschze recusantes jejunare, 
litanias suas post Pentecosten posuerunt, quinta, sexta, et septima feriis ejusdem 
hebdomadis, eas facientes. 

© See more of this Rogation-fast, book xiii, chap. i. sect. x. vol. iv. p. 91. 


950 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


matter under dispute, that may admit of further inquiry. For 
the Greek Church, the thing seems more uncontested, that 
they never had any rogation-fast in the time of Pentecost. 
For besides the silence of all the ancient Greek writers about 
it, Leo Allatius, who was originally a Greek, assures us £, that 
the present Greek Church knows nothing of the three roga- 
tion-days before Ascension; neither have they any stated fasts 
between Easter and Pentecost,—no, not so much as the half- 
fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays, which were observed as 
stationary days in all other parts of the year. And both he 
and Gretser § reprove those who ascribe the observation of the 
rogation-fast to them, upon a mistaken ground, as if the word 
διακαινήσιμος, Which signifies ‘ the week after Easter,’ or ‘ the 
week of renovation,” was to be read διακενίσιμος, ‘ the week of 
maceration, or fasting,’ supposing it to be the week of the 
rogation-fast, when indeed there never was any such fast in 


f Allat. de Dominicis Hebdomad. Greece. (Col. Agripp. 1648. 4to, p. 1456.) 
Rogationes triduanze ante Ascensionem Domini Greecis ignotee sunt, nec ulla 
habent stata jejunia inter Pascha et Pentecosten ... Immo vero, quum in aliis 
hebdomadis feria quarta et sexta jejunium precipiatur, ea jejunia iis etiam 
feriis solvere concessum est. 

8. Allat. (p. 1456.) Nomen (διακαινησίμου) habuit ex sanctissimo resurrec- 
tionis Christi triumpho, quo omnia renovantur, instaurantur, et meliorem in 
statum reducuntur. Hine apparet, quantum aberrent ii, qui nullo veterum 
seriptorum testimonio fido διακοινήσιμον scribunt; multoque enormius, qui 
διακενίσιμον, quasi diceres ‘exinanitioni’ dicatum, quia per illud tempus 
exinaniunt sua corpora et macerant, oraturi Deum pro commoditate anni, et 
volunt esse hebdomadem rogationum ; quos optime refellit Gretserus in Codi- 
num, lib. iil, 6. ix.——Gretser. in Codin. lib. iii. ¢. ix. (p. 246, edit. Paris. 1648.) 
Male Junius in notis interpretatur ἑβδομάδα διακαινησίμου. Male etiam ratio- 
nem nominis reddens, ait, eam dici διακενίσιμον, “ exinanitioni dicatam, quia 
per illud tempus exinaniunt sua corpora et macerant, oraturi Deum pro com- 
moditate anni.’ Primum, non scribendum διακενίσιμος, sed διακαινήσιμος, ut 
habent exemplaria Alexandri, rituales libri Greecorum, et Codex Bibliothecze 
Augustanee MS, quo continentur evangelia, diebus sacris preelegi solita, quorum 
initium, τῇ τρίτῃ τῆς διακαινησίμουι, Quocirea hebdomas τῆς διακαινη- 
σίμου dicitur quasi ‘septimana renovationis,’ τοῦ διακαινισμοῦ, quum, Christo 
resurgente, omnia renovata et instaurata fuerint. Secundo, tantum abest, ut 
hzee hebdomas ab exinanitione jejunantiumque inedia nomen invenerit ; ut tota 
illa hebdomade jejunium solvere moris fuerit. Testis Balsamon (in e. Ixix. 
Apost.) qui quum percensuisset dies, quibus jejunandum est, excipit quartos 
dies, et Parasceues seu ferias sextas quae sunt πρὸ τῆς ἀποκρέου, Seu ἀπόκρεω, 
ante carnisprivium : et que sunt πρὸ τῆς τυροφάγου, et hebdomadem τῆς 
διακαινησίμου. 


Cuar. ITI. 81. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 251 


use among them. So that as this fast was of no long standing 
in the Western Church, nor universally received there ; so it 
is plain the Eastern Church knew nothing of it, but always 
kept Pentecost an entire festival, according to the ancient and 
general rule of the Church. 





CHAPTER III. 


OF THE WEEKLY FASTS OF WEDNESDAYS AND FRIDAYS, OR 
THE STATIONARY DAYS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 


Sect. I.—The Original of these Fasts. 


Tuus far we have considered the annual fasts of the ancient 
Church, which were kept at their stated times in the revolu- 
tion of every year. Beside these, they had their weekly fasts 
on Wednesdays and Fridays, called the stationary-days, and 
half-fasts, and fasts of the fourth and sixth days of the week ; 
by the Latins, ‘feria, quarta, et sexta ;’ and by the Greeks, 
τετρὰς and παρασκευή. These are certainly as ancient as the 
time of Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian. For Clemens 
describing his Gnostic, or perfect Christian, says*, “ He un- 
derstands the mystery of the fasts of the fourth and sixth days, 
which are called by the names of Mercury and Venus among 
the Gentiles. He therefore fasts all his life from covetousness 
and lust :” meaning that those were the peculiar vices of 
Mereury and Venus among the heathen. Not long after, 
Tertullian », disputing against some who were against all reli- 


a Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. (Oberthiir, vol. vi. p. 488.) Οἶδεν αὐτὸς καὶ THC 
νηστείας τὰ αἰνίγματα THY ἡμερῶν τούτων, τῆς τετράδος καὶ THC παρα- 
σκευῆς, λέγω" ἐπιφημίζονται γὰρ, ἡ μὲν Ἕρμοῦ: ἡ δὲ, ᾿Αφροδίτης" αὐτίκα 
νηστεύει κατὰ τὸν βίον φιλαργυρίας τε ὁμοῦ, καὶ φιληδονίας" ἐξ ὧν at 
πᾶσαι ἐκφύονται κακίαι. 

b Tertul. de Jejun. ο. xiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 552, B 11.) Si omnem in totum 
devotionem temporum et dierum et mensium et annorum erasit apostolus, cur 
Pascha celebramus in annuo cireulo, in mense primo ? Cur quinquaginta exinde 
diebus in omni exultatione decurrimus? Cur stationibus quartam et sextam 
Sabbati dicamus, et jejuniis Parasceuen ? 


9 
oe 


959 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


gious observation of times and seasons, because of those words 
of the apostle (Gal. iv. 10), ‘‘ Ye observe days, and months, 
and times, and years ;” he thus refutes them from the practice 
and observation of the whole Church: “ If the apostle has 
wholly cancelled all observation of times, and days, and months, 
and years, why do we celebrate the Pasch in its annual return 
and revolution? Why do we spend the fifty days after in 
perpetual joy? Why do we set apart the fourth and sixth 
days of the week for our stations, and the ‘ Parasceue,’ or 
‘Friday,’ for our fasts?” In like manner, Origen*®: ‘“ We 
have the forty days of Lent consecrated to fasting: we have 
the fourth and sixth days of the week, on which we observe 
our solemn fasts:” and Victorinus the Martyr 4, who lived in 
the latter end of the third century, speaks of both these days 
as religiously observed with fasting, either till nine o’clock, 
that is, three in the afternoon, or till evening ; or by a super- 
position (as they called it) to the next day. And he particu- 
larly tells us, they observed Friday as a stationary day, because 
it was the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Which is also 
noted by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who lived in the same 
age, and died a martyr a little after in the Diocletian persecu- 
tion. For thus he speaks in one of his canons®: “ Let no 
one blame us for observing the fourth day of the week, and the 
‘ Parasceue,’ or ‘day of preparation,’ viz. Friday, or the sixth 
day, on which days we have a rational appointment to fast, 
from ancient tradition: on the fourth day, because the Jews 
conspired to betray our Lord; and on the preparation, or 
sixth day, because then our Lord suffered for us. 


¢ Origen. Hom. x. in Levitic. (Bened. Paris. 1733. vol. ii. p. 246, D 8.) 
Habemus Quadragesimee dies jejuniis consecratos. Habemus quartam et sex- 
tam septimanze dies, quibus solemniter jejunamus. 

4 Victorin. de Fabrica Mundi: Cave, Hist. Litt. (Basil. 1741. vol. i. p. 148.) 
Nune ratio veritatis ostenditur, quare dies quartus ‘ tetras’ nuncupatur: quare 
usque ad horam nonam jejunamus usque ad vesperam, aut superpositio usque 
in alterum diem fiat. ... Sextus dies ‘ Parasceue’ appellatur: hoe quoque die 
ob passionem Domini Jesu Christi, aut stationem Deo, aut jejunium facimus. 

e Petr. Alex. c. xv. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 968.) Οὐκ ἐγκαλέσει τις ἡμῖν παρα- 
τηρουμένοις τετράδα Kai παρασκευὴν, ἐν αἷς καὶ νηστεύειν ἡμῖν κατὰ παρά- 
δοσιν εὐλόγως προσετέτακτο" τὴν μὲν γὰρ τετράδα διὰ τὸ γενόμενον συμ- 
βούλιον ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐπὶ τῇ παραδοσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου, τὴν δὲ παρα- 


σκευὴν, [Ore αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Erabe.| .. . 


Cuap. 111, ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 953 


Secr. I].—The Reasons of their Institution. 


Many other such testimonies occur in the writers of the 
fourth and following ages, St. Basil, St. Jerome’, St. Austin’, 
Epiphanius!, and the authors of the Apostolical Canons and 
Constitutions *: but those already alleged are most pertinent 
to show the antiquity of the observation. Some derive the 
original of these fasts from apostolical institution. So Hpi- 
phanius and the author of the Constitutions. Which, as a 
learned person rightly observes}, is a good argument of their 
antiquity, seeing those authors could derive them from no 


f Basil. Ep. eclxxxix. (Bened. Paris. 1721. vol. ili. p. 186, Ὁ 4.) Ἡμεῖς μὲν 
τοιγε τέταρτον καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἑβδομάδα κοινωνοῦμεν" ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ, ἐν TH 
τετράδι, ἐν τῇ παρασκευῇ, καὶ τῷ σαββάτῳ. 

8. Hieron. in Galat. iv. 10. (Venet. 1769. vol. vii. p. 456, D.) Si dies obser- 
vare non licet, et menses, et tempora, et annos, nos quoque simile crimen 
ineurrimus, quartam Sabbati observantes, et Parasceuen, ete. 

h Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. See note below (m). 

i Epiphan. Heeres. Ixxy. sect. vi. (Colon. 1682. tom. i. p. 910, B 4.) Τίνι δὲ 
οὐ συμπεφώνηται ἐν πᾶσι κλίμασι τῆς οἰκουμένης, ὕτι τετρὰς Kai προσάβ- 
βατον νηστεία ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ὡρισμένη ; Bi δὲ καὶ χρὴ τὸ τῆς 
διατάξεως τῶν ἀποστόλων λέγειν, πῶς ἐκεῖ ὡρίζοντο τετράδα, καὶ προσάβ- 
βατον νηστείαν διὰ παντὸς, χωρὶς Πεντηκοστῆς ; Id. Exposit. Fidei, 
sect. xxii. Συνάξεις δὲ ἐπιτελούμεναι ταχθεῖσαί εἰσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων, 
τετράδι, καὶ προσαββάτῳ, καὶ κυριακῇ" τετράδι δὲ, καὶ ἐν προσαββάτῳ, ἐν 
νηστείᾳ ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης" ἐπειδήπερ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ τετράδι συνελήφθη ὁ 
Κύριος, καὶ τῷ προσαββάτῳ ἐσταυρώθη, καὶ παρέδωκαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἐν 
ταύταις νηστείαις ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, πληρουμένου τοῦ ῥητοῦ ; Ὅτι bray ἀπαρθῇ 
an’ αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος, τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις" Ov’ ddov 
μὲν τοῦ ἔτους ἡ νηστεία φυλάττεται ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἁγίᾳ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
φημὶ δὲ τετράδι καὶ προσαββάτῳ, ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης, δίχα μόνης τῆς πεν- 
τηκοστῆς ὕλης τῶν πεντήκοντα ἡμερῶν, ἐν αἷς οὔτε γονυκλισίαι γίνονται, 
οὔτε νηστεία προστέτακται. 

k Can. Apost. Ixix. (Labbe, νο]. i. p. 40.) Et τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύ- 
repoc, ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ἀναγνώστης, ἢ ψάλτης, τὴν ἁγίαν τεσσαρακοστὴν 
οὐ νηστεύει, ἢ τετράδα, ἢ παρασκευὴν, καθαιρείσθω: ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ Cv ἀσθε- 
νειαν σωματικὴν ἐμποδίζοιτο" ἐὰν δὲ λαϊκὸς Y, ἀφοριζέσθω. Constitut. 
lib. v. ο. xiv. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 362, A 3.) Terpdda δὲ καὶ παρασκευὴν προσ- 
ἐταἕεν ἡμῖν νηστεύειν" τὴν δὲ διὰ τὴν προδοσίαν, τὴν δὲ διὰ τὸ πάθος.--- 
Lib. vii. ο. xxiv. (p. 426.) Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκρι- 
τῶν" νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρᾳ σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ ὑμεῖς δὲ ἢ τὰς πέντε 
νηστεύσατε ἡμέρας, ἢ τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν. 

1 Bever. Cod. Canon. Vindie. lib. iii. 6. x. sect. ii. (Coteler. vol. ii. p. 171.) 
Has Constitutiones longe ante Epiphanium extitisse, ex eo satis patet, quod ab 
ipso sub apostolorum nomine landentur. 








254 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


ἕν 


other fountain but apostolical institution. However, St. Austin 
does not carry the matter so high, but rather accounts them 
an appointment of the Church upon reasons taken out of the 
Gospel. ‘This reason,” says he™, “may be given why the 
Church fasts chiefly on the fourth and sixth days of the week ; 
because it appears, upon considering the Gospel, that on the 
fourth day, which we commonly call ‘ feria quarta,’ the Jews 
took counsel to kill our Lord: and on the sixth day our Lord 
suffered. For which reason, the sixth day is rightly appointed 
a fast.” Peter, bishop of Alexandria”, assigns the same reason 
for the observation of these fasts; and so does the author of 
the Apostolical Constitutions, and Victorinus Martyr, in the 
passages already cited. So that whatever original these fasts 
had in point of time, the ancients seem generally to agree in 
the reason of their institution, that they were made fasts in 
regard to our Saviour’s being betrayed and crucified on these 
days, which the Churches thought proper to be kept in per- 
petual remembrance by the return of a weekly observation. 


Secr. H1—How they differed from the Lent-Fast, and all 
others, in point of duration. 

But we are to note, that these fasts, being of continual use 
every week throughout the year, except in the fifty days be- 
tween Kaster and Pentecost, were not kept with that rigour 
and strictness which was observed in the time of Lent. For 
the Lent-fast, as has been showed before, commonly held till 
evening every day that it was observed: but these weekly fasts 
ordinarily held no longer than nine o’clock, that is, three in 
the afternoon, unless any chose voluntarily to protract them 
till the evening, or by a superposition (as Victorinus Martyr 


m Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 61, A 10.) Cur 
quarta et sexta maxime jejunet ecclesia, illa ratio reddi videtur, quod conside- 
rato evangelio, ipsa quarta Sabbati, quam vulgo quartam feriam vocant, consi- 
lium reperiuntur ad occidendum Dominum fecisse Judeei. Intermisso autem 
uno die, cujus vespera Dominus cum discipulis manducavit, qui finis fuit ejus 
diei, quem vocamus quintam Sabbati, deinde traditus est ea nocte, quae jam ad 
sextam Sabbati, qui dies passionis ejus manifestus est, pertinebat. . . . Hoe ergo 
die intermisso, passus est Dominus (quod nullus ambigit) sexta Sabbati: qua- 
propter et ipsa sexta recte jejunio deputatur. 

n Petr. Alexandr. c. xv. Sce before, note (e), p. 252. 


παρ. 111. 8 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. O55 


phrases it) extended them to the morning of the next day. 
And for this reason, they are commonly spoken of by the dis- 
tinguishing names of ‘stationes et semijejunia,’ ‘stations and 
half-fasts ;? because on these days they continued the church- 
assemblies till three o’clock in the afternoon, and no longer ; 
whereas a perfect and complete fast was never reckoned to 
end before evening. Tertullian often speaks of them under 
these covert appellations, in many places besides that already 
cited. In one place°®, he styles them ‘ stationum semijejunia,’ 
‘the half-fasts of the stations.’ In other places ?, he distin- 
guishes three sorts of abstinence under the names of ‘ jejuna- 
tiones, xerophagize, stationes.’ Where, by ‘jejunationes,’ he 
understands ‘ the complete fasts,’ which held till evening; by 
‘xerophagize,’ ‘ the abstaining from flesh, and living upon dry 
meats ;° and by ‘stationes,’ ‘the fasts till nine o'clock.’ 
Which he therefore calls ‘ officia 4 recusati vel recisi vel retar- 
dati pabuli, ‘the offices of wholly refusing meat till evening ; 
or retrenching it to live upon dry meats—bread and water ; or 
retarding the meal till nine o’clock. And again*, “ The 
bridling of the appetite, ‘per nullas interdum, vel seras, vel 
aridas escas,’” either by wholly abstaining from meat till even- 
ing, or by deferring the meal to a late hour, that is, three in 
the afternoon; or by abstaining from flesh, and feeding only 
upon dry meats, bread, and water. In all which distinctions 
any one may plainly discern, that the stations and half-fasts 
are put to denote the weekly fasts of Wednesday and Friday, 


© Tertul. de Jejun. ec. xiii. (Paris. 1664. p. 551.) Ecce convenio vos et przeter 
Pascha jejunantes, citra illos dies, quibus ablatus est sponsus, et stationum 
semijejunia interponentes, et vero interdum pane et aqua victitantes, ut cuique 
visum est. 

P Ibid. e. i. (ibid. p. 554, B 5.) Arguunt nos, quod jejunia propria cus- 
todiamus; quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus ; quod etiam 
xerophagias observemus, siccantes cibum ab omni carne, et omni jurulentia, et 





uvidioribus quibusque pomis ; ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus. 
Cap. xi. p. 550, B 4. Propterea per singulas direximus species jejunationum, 
xerophagiarum, stationum, ut, dum recensemus secundum utriusque Testamenti 
paraturam, quantum proficiant recusati vel recisi vel retardati pabuli officia 
eos retundamus qui hee velut vacantia infirmant. 

q Ibid. c. xi. See previous note. 

r Tbid. ο. 1. Disciplinam gule frenos induentem per nullas interdum vel seras 
vel aridas escas. (P. 544, A 9.) 


256 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXI. 


which, among the Catholics, held only till nine o’clock, though 
Tertullian and the Montanists pleaded stiffly for having them 
protracted till the evening, urging a new revelation and autho- 
rity from the Holy Ghost for such imposition. But the Church 
kept constant to her ancient practice, continuing these fasts to 
nine o'clock, and no longer, as appears from the account which 
Epiphanius gives of them in his own time, speaking of the cus- 
toms of the Catholic Church: ‘On the fourth and sixth days 
of the week,” says he‘, “we continue fasting to the ninth 
hour.” And again, “On the fourth and sixth days through- 
out the whole year, except in the fifty days of Pentecost, a 
fast is kept in the holy Catholic Church to the ninth hour.” 
And, therefore, Prudentius, describing the passion of Frue- 
tuosus, a Spanish bishop and Martyr, brings him in thus, 
answering for himselft, “‘ We keep fast to-day; I cannot 
drink: the ninth hour is not yet come.” Where he plainly 
refers to the hour of the day, to which these stationary fasts 
continued. And in another place", “It is now near the 
ninth hour, and the sun begins to decline: three parts of the 
day are scarce ended, and the fourth remains. We now offer 
up our prayers and receive the eucharist ; and then we break 
off our festival, and go to our ordinary refreshment.” In 
which words, the festival denotes one of these stationary days, 
on which they held religious assemblies in the Church, offered 
up their devotions, received the eucharist, and then at nine 
o'clock broke up the assembly, and went to their ordinary 
meal. 


S Epiphan. Exposit. Fid. sect. xxii. See sect. ii. note (i), p. 253. 
τ Prudent. Peristeph. Hymn. vi. (Valpy, vol. i. p. 279.) — 
Jejunamus, ait; recuso potum: 
Nondum nona diem resignat hora. 
ἃ Thid. Cathemerin. Hymn. viii. (Valpy, vol. i. p. 120.)— 
10 Nona submissum rotat hora solem, 
Partibus vix dum tribus evolutis, 
Quarta devexo superest in axe 
Portio lucis. 
Nos brevis voti, dape vindicata, 
15 Solvimus festum, fruimurque mensis 
Adfatim plenis, quibus imbuatur 
Prona voluptas. 


Cuap. ITI. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


wo 
On 
-! 


Sect. 1V.— With what Solemnity they were observed. 


And hence we learn, that these stationary days were not 
only observed with fasting, but with religious assemblies, and 
solemn devotions in the Church, with receiving the eucharist, 
and the usual service of the Lord’s-day in all particulars, save 
that the sermon, perhaps, was omitted, which was never omit- 
ted on the Lord’s-day. St. Ambrose, exhorting his hearers to 
observe the usual fasts of the Church, gives a like account of 
the service of these stationary days. For the fast of Lent, he 
exhorts them to put off their meal to the end” of the day, 
because that was the regular way of observing Lent; but 
there were many other days on which they were to come to 
church presently after noon, and sing their hymns, and cele- 
brate the oblation or eucharist, and then their fast was ended. 
In which words, as he plainly intimates that the fast of the 
stationary days was shorter than that of Lent, so he expressly 
affirms, ‘“‘ That on those days they held religious assemblies at 
church in the afternoon, and there exercised themselves in 
singing of hymns and receiving the eucharist.”. Which is the 
same account as is given by Tertullian, St. Basil, and Socrates 
(as I have had occasion to note elsewhere*), only with this dif- 
ference, that Socrates says, “‘ At Alexandria they had sermons 
on these days, and all the other service of the Church, but not 
the communion ; in which that church was singular, and differ- 
ing from the practice of all other churches.” 


Sect. V.—How the Catholics and Montanists disputed about 
the Observation of them. 


However, this difference in this matter, nor in any other 
customs and usages of the like nature, raised no dispute in the 
Catholic Church, because the things were indifferent in them- 
selves, and the Church always practised them with a just 
regard to Christian liberty, having no express command for 


w Ambros. Hom. viii. in Psalm. exviii. vers. 62. (Paris. 1836. vol. ii. p. 288.) 
Differ aliquantulum, non longe est finis diei: immo plerique sunt ejusmodi dies ; 
ut statim meridianis horis adveniendum sit in ecclesiam, canendi hymni, cele- 
branda oblatio. 

* Book xiii. chap. ix. sect. ii. vol. iv. p. 355. 

VOL. VII. 5 


258 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXI. 


them in the word of God. The Church never tied them upon 
men’s consciences as Divine injunctions, but only as laudable 
ecclesiastical institutions, or, at most, as customs descending 
from ancient tradition, and (in the opmion of some) from 
apostolical practice. Therefore, though the greatest persons 
readily observed them (as Socrates observes of Theodosius 
Junior’, “That he fasted often, especially upon Wednesdays 
and Fridays, which he did with an earnest desire,” ἄκρως 
Χριστιανίζειν, ‘to live up to the height of Christian perfec- 
tion’), yet if men’s infirmities or employments would not suffer 
them to go so far as others in the observation of these days, a 
just allowance was made, and no severity of ecclesiastical cen- 
sure, further than admonition, passed upon them. The clergy, 
indeed, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and all inferior orders 
belonging to the Church, are by some canons? obliged to ob- 
serve these and other fasts under pain of deposition and degra- 
dation: and this was thought not unreasonable, because they 
had ordinarily no other employment but assiduously to attend 
the service of the Church. But even this would not satisfy 
the wild and enthusiastic rigour of the Montanists: for they 
extended these fasts from morning till evening, and would 
oblige all men to observe them in that extent, not as ordinary 
usages and customs of the Church, but as necessary and indis- 
pensable Divine injunctions, lately given to the world by the 
new inspiration of the Holy Ghost speaking in their great 
prophet Montanus, who, as they pretended, had authority from 
God to give more perfect laws and rules of living to the Church, 
than any that were delivered by the apostles. This was the 
dispute between them and the Church, as appears from Ter- 
tullian’s book ‘De Jejuniis adversus Psychicos,’ ‘Of Fasting 
against the Carnal,’ as he slanderously and contumeliously 
terms the Catholics, whilst he wrote against the Church in 
defence of the new hypothesis of the Montanists. The dispute 
was not whether the Church had an ordinary power to appoint 


Y Socrat. lib. vii. 6. xxii. (Reading, 1720. p. 369, 1.) (Vales. Amstel. 1700. 
p- 294, Ὁ 4.) Kaprepdc δὲ οὕτως ἣν, ὡς καὶ κρύος Kai καῦμα γενναίως ὑπο- 
μένειν; νηστεύειν τε τὰ πολλὰ, καὶ μάλιστα τὰς καλουμένας τετράδας καὶ 
παρασκευὰς ἡμέρας" καὶ τοῦτο ἐποίει, ἄκρως Χριστιανίζειν ἐσπουδακώς. 

2 Can. Apost. ᾿ἰχῖχ. See sect. ii. note (Κ), p. 253. 


Cuap. IIT. 8 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 259 


days of fasting proper for her own edification, For this she 
always claimed and practised, as appears from this whole ac- 
count that has been given of her fasts; and also from what 
Tertullian says concerning them*: ‘“ That the bishops of the 
Church, besides the stated and ordinary annual and weekly 
fasts, were wont sometimes to enjoin their respective charges 
to observe certain occasional fasts upon emergent necessities 
of the Church.” But the Montanists pretended to impose 
their new fasts as Divine laws, by special direction of the Holy 
Ghost : and therefore it was that Apollonius, an ancient eccle- 
siastical writer, mentioned by Eusebius’, charged Montanus 
as setting up for a lawgiver in imposing fasts. Which im- 
posing fasts by a law, must import his presuming to command 
fasts as of necessary obligation by Divine precept, and as 
peculiar dictates from the new pretended inspirations of the 
Holy Ghost. For, otherwise, the bishops of the Church 
would have been chargeable with the same crime; because 
it is certain they appointed fasts, both occasional and con- 
stant, yet with just liberties of human laws, for the benefit 
and edification of the Church. And herein, I conceive, con- 
sisted the true difference between them: the one had a just 
authority to make proper rules about fasting for order and 
edification, and used their authority only for that end, keeping 
within their proper bounds; but the other had no authority at 
all, being no governors or rulers of the Church, and yet pre- 
tended to a Divine authority to impose necessary and universal 
laws of fasting upon the Church, as by the peculiar impulse 
and direction of the Holy Ghost. And upon this they made a 
schism, and set up a new communion and conyenticles in oppo- 
sition to the Church, because she would not comply with their 
pretended oracles and inspirations, which she knew proceeded 
only from the spirit of imposture. 


a Tertul. de Jejun. 6. xiii. (Paris. 1664. p. 551, C 4.) Episcopi universee plebi 
mandare jejunia assolent ; interdum ex aliqua sollicitudinis ecclesiasticze causa. 

b Ap. Euseb. lib. v. ¢. xviii. (Vales. Amstel. 1695. p. 149, D 6.) (Reading, 
1720, p. 233.) Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ νηστείας νομοθετήσας. 


260 THE ANTIQUITIES, &c. 


Srcr. VI.—How the Wednesday Fast came to be changed to 
Saturday in the Western Churches. 


I have but one thing more to observe concerning these 
weekly fasts, which is, the change that was made of one of 
them from Wednesday to Saturday in the Western Churches. 
In the Eastern Church, Saturday, or the Sabbath, was always 
observed as a festival: and so some learned men think it was 
originally in the Western Church also, as has been showed 
before in the last Book®. However it is certain, that about 
the time of the Council of Eliberis, Saturday was made a fast 
in some of the Western Churches: for that Council orders it 
to be observed as a fast in the Spanish Churches*. And 
St. Austin acquaints us®, ‘‘ That it was kept as a fast in his 
time at Rome, and some other of the Western and African 
Churches.” So that in all these places, for some time, they 
kept three fasts in the week by the superposition of Saturday 
to the other two. But in process of time, the Saturday fast 
grew more into repute than the Wednesday, which by degrees 
came to be neglected or omitted; till at last, as a learned 
person’ has observed, in all churches which embraced the 
Saturday fast, Wednesday was wholly laid aside. 


¢ Book xx. ch, iii. sect. vi. p. 60. of this vol. 

d Cone. Illiber. ὁ. xxvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 973.) Errerem placuit corrigi, ut 
omni Sabbati die jejuniorum superpositionem celebremus. 

e Aug. Epist. Ixxxvi. ad Casulan. See Book xx. chap. iii. sect. vi. p. 61. 

f Albaspin. Observat. lib. i. ¢. xiii. (Helmest. 1672. p. 59.) Notandum porro, 
simul ac Sabbatis jejunari eceptum est, apud Latinos diei Mereurii jejunium 
desisse, et in Sabbatum transmissum esse. 


BOOK XXII. 


OF THE MARRIAGE-RITES OBSERVED IN THE ANCIENT 
CHURCH. 





CHAPTER I. 


A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE HERETICS WHO CONDEMNED OR 
VILIFIED MARRIAGE ANCIENTLY, UNDER PRETENCE OF 
GREATER PURITY AND PERFECTION ; AND OF SUCH ALSO 
AS GAVE LICENSE TO COMMUNITY OF WIVES AND FOR- 
NICATION. 


Scr. L.—Community of Wives first taught by Simon Magus. 


Brrore I enter upon the history of the Chureh’s practice in 
relation to the holy office of matrimony, and the several rites 
and usages observed in the celebration thereof, it will not be 
amiss to give a short account of those heretics who, imme- 
diately upon the first plantation of the Gospel, set themselves 
to vilify and contemn marriage, either by openly condemning 
it, as a thing unlawful under the Gospel, upon pretence that 
the Gospel required greater purity and perfection ; or by 
granting license for community of wives and promiscuous for- 
nication. Though God had instituted marriage as an honour- 
able state in man’s innocency; and our Saviour had allowed 
it as such, reducing it to its primitive institution; and the 
apostle had said, “ That marriage was honourable in all, and 
the bed undefiled :” yet, according to the Spirit’s prediction, 
there presently arose some who departed from the faith, giving 
heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, forbidding to 
marry; and others, who taught men to commit fornication 


262 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


td 


with license and impunity. This latter doctrine was imme- 
diately broached by Simon Magus, the arch-heretic, against 
the faith. For, as St. Austin® informs us, he taught “the 
detestable impurity of the promiscuous use of women.” Which 
is also signified by Epiphanius® and Irenzeus, when they say, 
“That Simon corrupted venerable marriage by his filthiness in 
following his own lusts with Helena, his strumpet.” Theodo- 
ret® gives a more particular account of his impiety, telling us 
the ground of his doctrine ; how he taught, that the old pro- 
phets were only the servants of the angels who made the 
world: upon which account he encouraged his followers not to 
regard them, nor dread the threatenings of the law, but as free 
to do whatever they listed; because they were to be saved, 
not by good works, but by grace. And upon the strength of 
this principle, they who were of his sect, gave themselves up 
boldly, without restraint, to all manner of lusts and intem- 
perance, often practising magical enchantments and sorcery, 
as Divine mysteries, to bring about their amorous designs. 
All which agrees very well with that short account which is 
given by Damascen4, and the author of the Predestinarian 
Heresy, published by Sirmondus, who say*, that Simon taught 
the promiscuous use of women without distinction ; and that 


ἃ Aug. de Heres. ¢. 1. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 4.) Docebat detestandam 
turpitudinem indifferenter utendi feminis. 

> Epiphan. Heres, i. Simon. al. xxi. sect. ii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p- 56, B 9.) 
Γυναῖκα γάρ τινα ἑαυτῷ εὑράμενος ῥεμβάδα, Ἑλένην τοὔνομα, ἀπὸ τῆς 
Τυρίων ὁρμωμένην ἄγεται, μὴ ὑποφαίνων συνάφειαν ἔχειν πρὸς ταύτην" ἐν 
παραβύστῳ δὲ αἰσχρότητι συμπεριπλεκόμενος τῷ γυναίῳ ὁ γόης. Tren. 
lib. i, ο. xx. (Venet. 1742. vol. i. p. 99.) Hic Helenam quamdam ipse a Tyro 
civitate Phcenices quaestuariam quum redemisset, secum circumducebat, ete. 

¢ Theodoret. Fabul. Heretic. lib. i. e. i. (Schulze, vol. iv. p. 288.) Τοὺς δὲ 
προφήτας τῶν ἀγγέλων ὑπουργοὺς γεγενῆσθαι τοὺς δὲ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύον- 





τας ἐκέλευσε μὴ προσέχειν ἐκείνοις, μηδὲ φρίττειν τῶν νόμων τὰς ἀπειλὰς, 
ἀλλὰ πράττειν ὡς ἐλευθέρους ἅπερ ἂν ἐθελήσωσιν" οὐ γὰρ διὰ πράξεων 
ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ χάριτος τεύξεσθαι τῆς σωτηρίας" οὗ δὴ χάριν, οἱ τῆς 
τούτου συμμορίας πᾶσαν ἐτόλμων ἀσέλγειαν, καὶ μαγγανείας ἐχρῶντο 
παντοδαπαῖς, ἐρωτικά τινα καὶ ἀγώγιμα μηχανώμενοι, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα boa τῆς 
γοητείας ἴδια ὡς θεῖα μετιόντες μυστήρια. 

“ Damascen. de Heeres. (Paris. 1712. vol. i. p. 81.) ᾿Εδίδαξεν αἰσχροποιὸν 
μίξιν μολυσμοῦ, ἀδιαφορίαν σωμάτων. 

© Preedestinat. lib. i.e. i. Dieebat castitatem ad Deum non pertinere ; Deum 
mundum non fecisse,+ 


Cnap. 1. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 2963 


God regarded not chastity, forasmuch as the world was not 
made by him, but by angels. 


Sect. I].— Afterward by Saturnilus and the Nicolaitans, and 
many others. 


One of the chief of Simon’s scholars was Saturnilus, or 
Saturninus, a Syrian, who confirmed Simon’s impurity, as St. 
Austin says, and that upon the very same foundation‘, viz. 
“That God did not regard the world, because it was made by 
certain angels without his knowledge, or against his will.” 
Others say, he condemned matrimony and procreation of chil- 
dren universally; and that he was the first that asserted 
openly, that marriage was a doctrine and work of the devil. 
So Irenzeus£, Epiphanius®, Theodoret‘, and others after them. 
Perhaps he might maintain both opinions, equally injurious to 
lawful matrimony: for it has been no unusual thing with men 
that have stiffly opposed matrimony, to be more favourable to 
real impurity and fornication. 

The Nicolaitans are said, by all writers, to have trod in the 
steps of Simon Magus, in teaching the liberty of fornication. 
And this is supposed to be the doctrine and deeds of the Nico- 
laitans, condemned in the Revelation: for it is certain there 
were some at that time who taught men to commit fornication, 
as appears from the reproof given to the angel of the Church 
of Thyatira (Rev. 11. 20), ‘* Thou sufferest that woman Jeze- 
bel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my 
servants to commit fornication.” Which makes some learned 
men think, that the doctrine of Jezebel was the same with 
that of the Nicolaitans, and that they are but different names 


’ 


f Aug. de Heeres. ¢. iii. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 5.) Saturninus turpitu- 
dinem Simonianam in Syria confirmasse perhibetur: qui etiam mundum solos 
angelos septem preter conscientiam Dei Patris fecisse dicebat. 

& Iren. lib. i. 6. xxii. (Bened. Venet. 1734. vol. i. p. 101.) Nubere et gene- 
rare a Satana dicunt esse. 

h Epiphan. Heeres. xxiii. sect. ii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 63, at bottom.) To 
γαμεῖν καὶ τὸ γεννᾷν ὁ αὐτὸς ἀγύρτης ἐκ τοῦ Σατανᾶ ὑπάρχειν λέγει. 

i Theodoret. Heeret. Fab. lib. i. ὁ. ili. (Schulze, Hal. vol. iv. p. 291.) Τὸν 
δὲ γάμον οὗτος πρῶτος τοῦ διαβόλου διδασκαλίαν ὠνόμασε. 


204 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


of the same persons ; for all ecclesiastical writers agree, that 
the Nicolaitans held this doctrine. Trenzeus*, Tertullian', and 
Epiphanius™, make Nicolaus, one of the seven deacons, to be 
the author of it. But others excuse him, and say, it was a 
doctrine taken up by those who pretended to be his followers, 
grounded upon some mistaken words of his, which had no 
such meaning. So Clemens Alexandrinus" more than once 
apologizes for him: and, in like manner, Eusebius°, Theo- 


K Tren. lib. i. 6. xxvii. (Venet. 1734. vol. i. p. 105.) Nicolaitae magistrum 
quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex septem, qui primi ad diaconium ab apostolis 
ordinati sunt: qui indiserete vivunt. 

1 Tertul. de Prescript. ὁ. xlvi. (Paris. 1664. p. 220, A 2.) Alter hzereticus 
Nicolaus emersit: hic de septem diaconis, qui in Actis Apostolorum allecti sunt, 
fuit. ᾿ 

m Epiphan. Heeres. xxv. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 70.) Νικόλαος γέγονεν εἷς 
ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ διακόνων, ... ὕστερον δὲ τοῦτον ὑπέδυ ὁ διάβολος, Kai 
ἐξηπάτησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν καρδίαν τῇ αὐτῇ πλάνῃ τῶν προειρημένων παλαιῶν, 
κατατρωθῆναι μειζόνως ὑπὲρ τοὺς πρώην, κ. τ. Δ. 

» Clem. Alex. Stromat. ii. (Oxon. 1715. pp. 490, 491.) (Lips. 1831. vol. ii. p. 
193.) Τοιοῦτοι δὲ καὶ οἱ φάσκοντες ἑαυτοὺς Νικολάῳ ἕπεσθαι, ἀπομνημόνευμά 
τι τἀνδρὸς φέροντες ἐκ παρατροπῆς, τὸ δεῖν παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ 
μὲν γενναῖος κολούειν δεῖν ἐδήλου τάς τε ἡδονὰς, τάς τε ἐπιθυμίας" καὶ τῇ 
ἀσκήσει ταύτῃ καταμαραίνειν τὰς τῆς σαρκὸς ὁρμάς τε καὶ ἐπιθέσεις. Id. 
Stromat. iii. pp. 522, 523. (Lips. p. 225.) ᾿Επεμνήσθημεν δὲ καὶ τῆς κατὰ 
Καρποκράτην ἀθέσμου γυναικῶν κοινωνίας, περί τε τῆς Νικολάου ῥήσεως 
διαλεχθέντες, ἐκεῖνο παραλείπομεν" ὡραίαν, φασὶ, γυναῖκα ἔχων οὗτος, μετὰ 
τὴν ἀνάληψιν τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, πρὸς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὀνειδισθεὶς ζηλοτυ- 
πίαν, εἰς μέσον ἀγαγὼν τὴν γυναῖκα, γῆμαι τῷ βουλομένῳ ἐπέτρεψεν" 
ἀκόλουθον γὰρ εἶναι φασὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν ταύτην ἐκείνῃ TY φωνῇ, ὕτι παρα- 
χρήσασθαι τῇ σαρκὶ δεῖ: καὶ δὴ κατακολουθήσαντες τῷ γενομένῳ τῷ τε 
εἰρημένῳ ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀβασανίστως, ἐκπορνεύουσιν ἀναίδην, οἱ τὴν αἵρεσιν 
αὐτοῦ μετίοντες. ἸΤΙυνθάνομαι δ᾽ ἔγωγε τὸν Νικόλαον μηδεμίᾳ ἑτέρᾳ, παρ᾽ 
ἣν ἔγημεν, κεχρῆσθαι γυναικί: τῶν τ᾽ ἐκείνου τέκνων θηλείας μὲν καταγη- 
ράσαι παρθένους, ἄφθορον δὲ διαμεῖναι τὸν υἱόν: ὧν οὕτως ἐχόντων, 
ἀποβολὴ πάθους ἣν εἰς μέσον τῶν ἀποστόλων ἡ τῆς ζηλοτυπουμένης 
ἐκκύκλησις γυναικός" καὶ ἡ ἐγκράτεια τῶν περισπουδάστων ἡδονῶν, τὸ παρα- 





χρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκὶ ἐδίδασκεν. 

© Euseb, lib. iii. ¢. xxix. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 81.) (Reading, 1720. 
p- 123.) ’Exi τούτων δῆτα καὶ ἡ λεγομένη τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν αἵρεσις, ἐπὶ 
σμικρότατον συνέστη χρόνον. ἧς δὴ καὶ ἡ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ᾿Αποκάλυψις 
μνημονεύει" οὗτοι Νικόλαον ἕνα τῶν ἀμφὶ τὸν Στέφανον διακόνων πρὸς τῶν 
ἀποστόλων ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν ἐνδεῶν θεραπείᾳ προκεχειρισμένων ηὔχουν" Oye μὴν 
᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς Κλήμης ἐν τρίτῳ Στρωματεῖ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ λίξιν 
ἱστορεῖ: ὡραίαν, φασὶ, γυναῖκα ἔχων, kK. τ᾿ Δ. See preceding note. 


Cuap. I. ὃ 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 965 


doret?, and St. Austin?. But it is agreed on all hands, that 
either he or his disciples brought in such a doctrine, which is 
condemned as the doctrine and deeds of the Nicolaitans in the 
Revelation. Afterwards it was propagated by Prodicus, the 
author of the impure sect of the Adamites, and by the Carpo- 
cratians and Gnostics, of whose impurities I need not stand to 
make a particular narration. 


Scr. I11.—Hence arose the Calumny of the Gentiles against the 
Christians in general, that they practised Impurity in their 
Religious Assemblies. 


I only observe, that from these vile practices of the sects 
under the name of Christians, arose that common charge of the 
heathens against the Christians in general, That they practised 
impurities in their religious assemblies. For some of these 
sects not only made a common practice of fornication and 
uncleanness, but adopted them into the mysteries of their 
religion. Clemens Alexandrinus* particularly charges it upon 
the Carpocratians; and Theodoret* upon the Adamites, the 


p Theodoret. Heeret. Fabul. lib. iii. 6. i, (Schulze, Hal. vol. iv. p. 340.) 
Ἢ Νικολαϊτῶν αἵρεσις, οὐ μόνον ἐξ ἀνοίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀκολασίας συνέστη" 
σαφέστερον δὲ τὰ περὶ ταύτης ὁ Κλήμης ἐδίδαξεν, x. τ. X. 

a Aug. de Heres. ὁ. v. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 5.) Nicolaitze a Nicolao 
nominati sunt, uno, ut perhibetur, ex illis septem, quos Apostoli diaconos ordi- 
naverunt. Iste quum de zelo pulcherrimze conjugis culparetur, velut purgandi 
se causa permisisse fertur, ut ea, qui vellet, uteretur. Quod ejus factum in 
sectam turpissimam versum est, qua placet usus indifferens feminarum. 

τ Clem. Strom. (Oxon. 1715. p. 511.) Οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Καρποκράτους καὶ ’Em- 
φάνους ἀναγόμενοι, κοινὰς εἶναι γυναῖκας ἀξιοῦσιν" ἐξ ὧν ἡ μεγίστη κατὰ 
τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐῤῥύη βλασφημία. Philastr. Hzeres. x. (Max. Bibl. V. P. 
vol. y. p. 707.) Floriani sive Carpocratiani dicuntur, negantes judicium atque 
resurrectionem, Christum natum de virgine non credentes, omnemque resur- 
rectionem in filiorum procreatione nefandi coitus zestimantes consistere, ut in 
ecclesia sua post occasionem solis lucernis exstinetis misceri cum mulierculis 
non dubitaverint, legis preeceptum implere putantes, ‘ Crescimini et multipli- 
camini.’? Judaismo potius et Paganitati parere nefande, quam Christianze 
veritati acquiescere properantes, pecudumque potius vitam et amentiam deti- 





nentes, quos et scriptura vitee pecudum comparavit. 

s Theodoret. Heret. Fabul. lib. i. 6. vi. (Schulze, Hal. vol. iv. p. 295.) 
Πρόδικος δὲ τοῦτον διαδεξάμενος τὴν τῶν καλουμένων ᾿Αδαμιτῶν συνεστῆή- 
σατο αἵρεσιν" οὗτος προφανῶς λαγνεύειν τοῖς Καρποκράτους προστέθεικε 
δόγμασι: κοινὰς γὰρ εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας ἐνομοθέτησεν" οὗ δὴ χάριν οὐκ ἐν 


266 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


followers of Prodicus, who was a disciple of Carpocrates. Epi- 
phanius‘ and St. Austin add to these the Gnosties: concerning 
whom St. Austin remarks", “That as they went by different 
names in different parts of the world, some called them ‘ Bor- 
boritze,’ ‘wallowers in the mire,’ because of their extreme 
impurity, which they were said to exercise in their mysteries.” 
And of Carpocrates, the father of the Carpocratians, he re- 
marks*, how he taught all manner of filthiness and invention 
of evil, saying, ‘‘ That this was the only way to escape and 
pass safe by the principalities and powers of the air, who were 
pleased therewith, that so men might come to the highest 
heaven.” Now these were doctrines of devils indeed, scarce 
heard of among the Gentiles, that a man should commit lewd- 
ness with his father’s wife, and that men should do evil that 
good might come; and that the best way to escape the devils’ 
power was to become slaves to them, and do the things that 
pleased them. Wherefore the heathens, knowing that such 
things were taught and practised among heretics, who went 
under the name of Christian, made no distinction, but threw 
the charge upon all Christians in general: and so, ““ By reason 
of their pernicious ways” (or, as some copies read it, 2 Pet. 
ii. 2, “their lascivious ways”) “the way of truth was evil 
spoken of.” 


Sect. [V.—These Doctrines being fetched from the very Dregs 
of Gentilism, and scandalous in the eyes of sober Heathens. 


And this was done so much the more plausibly and with 
a better grace, because there were but few among the heathen 


τοῖς κοινοῖς δείπνοις μόνον Td λυχνιαῖον φῶς ἐκποδὼν ποιούμενοι, ἧπερ ἂν 
ἕκαστος ἐπέτυχε συνεμίγνυτο" ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ τελετὴν τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκολασίαν 
ὑπειλήφεσαν μυστικήν. 

τ Epiphan. Heeres. xxvi. sect. iii, (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 84, D.) Αὐτὴν τὴν 
σύναξιν αὐτῶν ἐν αἰσχρότητι πολυμιξίας φύρουσιν. Id. sect. iv. tot. 

u Aug. de Heeres. ¢. vi. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 5.) Nonnulli eos etiam 
Borboritas vocant, quasi ccenosos, propter nimiam turpitudinem, quam in suis 
mysteriis exercere dicuntur. 

x Aug. de Heeres. 6. vii. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 5.) Carpocrates docebat 
omnem turpem operationem, omnemque adinventionem peccati: nee aliter 
evadi atque transiri principatus ac potestates, quibus heee placent, ut possit ad 
colum superius perveniri. 





Cuar. 1. § 4 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 267 


themselves that allowed such practices. The doctrines were 
fetched by heretics from the very dregs of Gentilism, and they 
were scandalous in the eyes of all wise and sober heathens. 
Some of the more barbarous nations, indeed, allowed of com- 
munity of wives, and practised promiscuous adultery. Solinus 
Polyhistor affirms it of the Hthiopians, called Garamantes” ; 
and Julius Ozesar gives the same account of the Britons’: but 
in all the civilized part of the world, throughout the whole 
Roman empire, we meet with but one instance of it in the 
Heliopolitans of Pheenicia, among whom, by the law of their 
country, Socrates says’, all women were common; so that no 
child knew his own father, because no distinction was made 
between parents and children. They also gave their virgins to 
be defiled by all strangers that came among them. And this 
iniquity, established by a law, continued among them till Con- 
stantine abrogated it by a contrary law, and builded them 
churches, and settled a bishop and clergy among them: by 
which means they were converted to Christianity, and brought 
to the orderly course of the rest of mankind in this particular, 
which was always reckoned scandalous among the very Gen- 
tiles. For Solinus, describing the lasciviousness of the Gara- 
mantes, which made that no child could know his own father, 
nor have any reverence for him, says, ‘“‘ Upon this account 
the Garamantes were reckoned a degenerate people among all 


y Solin. 6. xxxiii. (Antverp. 1572. p. 162.) Garamantici AZthiopes matrimo- 
nia privatim nesciunt; sed omnibus vulgo in venerem licet. Inde est, quod 
filios matres tantum recognoscunt. 

2 Czesar, de Bello Gallico, lib. v. 6. 14. (Oberlin. p. 155.) Uxores habent 
deni duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus, et 
parentes cum liberis. 

ἃ Soerat. lib. i. 6. xviii. (Reading, 1720. p. 48, 29.) (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. 
p-41,A 3.) Kowdg yap εἶναι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὰς γυναῖκας ἐγχώριος νόμος 
ἐκέλευε: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀμφίβολα μὲν ἦν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὰ τικτόμενα" γονέων 
γὰρ καὶ τέκνων οὐδεμία διάκρισις ἦν" τὰς δὲ παρθένους τοῖς παριοῦσι ἕένοις 
παρεῖχον πορνεύεσθαι: καὶ τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχαίου κρατοῦν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς λῦσαι 
ἐσπούδασε [ὁ βασιλεύς] νόμῳ γὰρ σεμνῷ τῶν αἰσχρῶν ἀνελὼν τὸ μῦσος, 
τὰ γένη ἑαυτὰ ἐπιγινώσκειν παρεσκεύασεν" ἐκκλησίας τε κτίσας, καὶ ἐπί- 
σκοπον χειροτονηθῆναι παρεσκεύασε, καὶ κλῆρον ἱερόν" οὕτω τὰ Ἡλιουπολι- 
τῶν κακὰ μετριώτερα ἀπειργάσατο. 

b Solin. ὁ. xxxiii. (Antverp. 1572. p. 163.) Ea propter Garamantici Aithiopes 
inter omnes populos degeneres habentur: nec’ immerito, quia adflicta castitatis 
disciplina, successionis uotitiam ritu improbo perdiderunt. 

3 


268 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE eBoox XXII. 


nations ; and that not without reason, because they had de- 
stroyed the discipline of chastity, and, by that wicked custom, 
lost all knowledge of succession among them.” It is true, 
indeed, Plato is generally accused by the ancient writers of 
the Church for saying, that ‘a community of wives ought to 
be established in his commonwealth.” The charge is brought 
against him by Theophilus’, bishop of Antioch, first of all: 
then by St. Jerome’, Chrysostom’, and Theodoretf. But if 
what Clemens Alexandrinus pleads in his behalf be true, there 
must be some mistake in the accusation. For he says8, 
‘Plato did not teach the community of wives after they mar- 


¢ Theophil. ad Autolye. lib. iii. (p. 383 in the edition of Justin, Paris. 1742.) 
(Paris. 1636. p. 120, ad caleem Justin. Martyr.) Πρῶτός ye Πλάτων, ὁ δοκῶν 
ἐν αὐτοῖς σεμνότερον πεφιλοσοφηκέναι, διαῤῥήδην ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ βίβλῳ τῶν 
πολιτειῶν ἐπιγραφομένῃ, τρόπῳ τινὶ νομοθετεῖ εἶναι κοινὰς ἁπάντων γυναῖ- 
κας, χρώμενος παραδείγματι τῷ Διὸς, καὶ Κρητῶν νομοθέτῃ, ὕπως διὰ 
προφάσεως παιδοποΐα πολλὴ γίνηται ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ ὡς δῆθεν τοὺς 
λυπουμένους διὰ τοιούτων ὁμιλιῶν, χρῆν παραμυθεῖσθαι. (Venet. 1747. 
p- 410, A 3.) 

4 Hieron. Epist. ad Ocean. lib. ii. adversus Jovin. (Venet. vol. ii. p. 335.) 
Scotorum natio uxores proprias non habet : et quasi Platonis Politiam legerit, 
et Catonis sectetur exemplum, nulla apud eos conjux propria est: sed ut cuique 
libitum fuerit, pecudum more lasciviunt. 

€ Chrysostom. Hom. v. in Titum. (Bened. 1718. vol. xi. p. 762, A.) Kai 
αὐτῶν φιλόσοφός τις ἐνομοθέτει, δούλῳ ἐξεῖναι μήτε παιδεραστεῖν, μήτε 
ξηραλοιφεῖν ; ὡς ἐναρέτου τοῦ πράγματος ὄντος, καὶ πολλὴν ἔχοντος τιμήν" 
διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπ᾽ οἰκήματος εἱστήκεισαν φανερῶς τοῦτο ποιοῦντες, κ. τ. Δ. 
Id. Hom. iv. in Act. (Bened. 1718. vol. ix. p. 38, at bottom.) Κοιναὶ, 
φησὶν, αἱ γυναῖκες ἔστωσαν, καὶ γεγυμνωμέναι παρθένοι ἐπ᾽’ ὄψεσι τῶν 
ἐραστῶν παλαιέτωσαν, καὶ κοινοὶ πατέρες ἔστωσαν, καὶ οἱ τικτόμενοι 





παῖδες. 

f Theodoret. de Curand. Greecor. Adfect. Serm. ix. (Schulze, Hal. vol. iv. 
p- 930.) ὋὉ yap τοι Λυκοῦργος, τῶν νομοθετῶν ὁ ἄριστος, ὡς δοκεῖ τοῖς 
τῶν “Ἑλλήνων σοφοῖς, διηγόρευσεν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, ὡς οἱ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων 
πολιτείαν ξυγγεγραφότες φασὶν, ἐξεῖναι καὶ ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξὶν, ἤδη δεξα- 
μένοις τὸν τοῦ γάμου ζυγὸν, ταῖς μὲν, ἐξ ἄλλων ἀνδρῶν, τοῖς δὲ, ἐκ γυναι- 
κῶν ἑτέροις ἀνδράσι ξυνεζευγμένων, παῖδας ποιεῖσθαι, ἀδεῶς μιγνυμένοις" 
καὶ drwy καὶ τὴν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ διαπλασθεῖσαν πόλιν κατὰ τούτους προσ- 
ἐταξε πολιτεύεσθαι. 

& Clem. Alex. Stromat. iii. ¢. ii. (Lips. 1831. vol. ii. p. 218, 17.) (p. 514. 
Oxon.) Δοκεῖ δὲ μοι kai τοῦ Πλάτωνος παρακηκοέναι, ἐν τῇ Πολιτείᾳ φαμέ- 
vou, κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας πάντων κοινὰς μὲν τὰς πρὸ τοῦ γάμου, 
τῶν αἰτεῖσθαι μελλόντων, καθάπερ καὶ τὸ θέατρον κοινὸν τῶν θεωμένων, 
φάσκοντος" τοῦ προκαταλαβόντος δὲ ἑκάστην ἑκάστου εἶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἔτι κοι- 


γὴν τὴν γεγαμημένην. 


Cuap. 1. 8 ὅ. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 269 


ried, but only that the world was like a theatre, which is com- 
mon to all spectators: so women, before they were married, 
were any man’s right that could obtain them; but after they 
were married, they were each man’s property, and no longer 
common.” But be this matter as it will, it is certain the 
main current of the heathen laws was against such practices ; 
and therefore it was the more abominable for heretics to intro- 
duce them into the purest of all religions, which was so much 
a friend to lawful marriage, and so great an enemy to all 
uncleanness. 


Secr. V.—Marriage condemned as unlawful by Tatian and 
the Eneratites. 


But these were not the only heretics that infested the 
Christian Church upon this point. There were others who 
railed at marriage as simply unlawful under the Gospel ; and 
would have all men abstain from it as a matter of necessity, 
without which they could not be saved. This doctrine was 
first taught by Saturninus and Marcion, as Irenzeus informs 
us", but afterwards better known among the Encratites, a sect 
begun by Tatian, the scholar of Justin Martyr; who, after 
his master’s death, divided from the Church upon this and 
some other points, asserting that marriage was no better than 
fornication ; and, therefore, all men ought to abstain from it : 
“Thereby,” says our author, ‘‘annulling the primitive work 
of God, and tacitly accusing him who created man male and 
female, for the propagation of mankind.” Epiphanius, speak- 


h Tren, lib. i. ὁ. xxx. (Bened. Venet. 1734. vol. i. p. 106, at bottom.) ᾿Απὸ 
Σατυρνίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος οἱ καλούμενοι ἐγκρατεῖς ἀγαμίαν ἐκήρυξαν, 
ἀθετοῦντες τὴν ἀρχαίαν πλάσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἠρέμα κατηγοροῦντες τοῦ 
ἄῤῥεν καὶ θῆλυ εἰς γένεσιν ἀνθρώπων πεποιηκότος. Ap. Euseb. lib. iv. 
ce. xxix. (Vales. 1695.) (Reading, 1720. p. 192, 31.) ab initio, ubi heee Trenzei 
verba recitat, et tum addit: Kai τοῦτο νῦν ἐξευρέθη παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, Ta- 





τιανοῦ τινὸς πρώτως ταύτην εἰσενέγκαντος τὴν βλασφημίαν" ὃς ἸΙουστίνου 
ἀκροατὴς γεγονὼς, ἐφύόσον μὲν συνῆν ἐκείνῳ, οὐδὲν ἐξέφῃνε τοιοῦτον. μετὰ 
δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου μαρτυρίαν ἀποστὰς τῆς ἐκκλησίας, οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρ- 
θεὶς καὶ τυφωθεὶς ὡς διαφέρων τῶν λοιπῶν, ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου 
συνεστήσατο, αἰῶνάς τινας αὐράτους ὁμοίως τοῖς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου μυθο- 
λογήσας" τὸν γάμον τε, φθορὰν καὶ πορνείαν παραπλησίως Μαρκίωνι καὶ 
Σατυρνίνῳ ἀναγορεύσας. 


270 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


ing of these Encratites, says, “They taught openly that mar- 
riage was the work of the devil.” Theodoret says the same *, 
‘That they observed celibacy, terming marriage fornication ; 
and the lawful joining of man and woman together, the work 
of the devil.” Which is also confirmed by St. Austin, who 
adds', “That upon this account they would admit no married 
person into their society, whether male or female.” 


Sect. VI.—Also by the Apostolici, or Apotactici. 


Not unlike these was that other sect, who called themselves 
Apostolici, from a vain pretence of being the only men who 
lead their lives according to the example of the apostles; and 
Apotactici, from a show of ‘renouncing’ the world more than 
other men. St. Austin says™, ‘They arrogantly assumed 
these names, because they would not receive into their com- 
munion any who were married, or kept the possession of any 
thing in property to themselves; and that they allowed no 
hope of salvation to such as used either of those things which 
they renounced.” 


Secr. VIT.—By the Manichees, Severians, and Archontici. 


St. Austin brings the same charge against the Manichees. 
He says”, ‘“‘ They condemned marriage, and prohibited it as 


1 Epiphan. Heeres. xlvii. sect. i. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 400, A 12.) ’Ey«pa- 
τιταὶ τὸν γάμον ἀποβάλλουσι, τοῦ Σατανᾶ φάσκοντες τοῦτον εἶναι. Τὸν δὲ 
γάμον σαφῶς τοῦ διαβόλου ὁρίζονται. 

k Theodoret. Heeret. Fabul. lib. i. 6. xx. (Schulze, Hal. vol. iv. p. 312.) Τὴν 
ἀγαμίαν δὲ μετίασι, πορνείαν τὸν γάμον προσαγορεύοντες, καὶ τὴν ἔννομον 
κοινωνίαν διαβολικὴν ὀνομάζοντες. 

1 Aug. de Heres. 6. xxv. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 7.) Encratitee nuptias 
damnant, atque omnino pares eas fornicationibus aliisque corruptionibus faci- 
unt: nee recipiunt in suorum numerum conjugio utentem, sive marem, sive 
feminam. 

m Aug. de Heeres. 6. xl. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 9.) Apostolici, qui se 
isto nomine arrogantissime vocaverunt, eo quod in suam communionem non re- 
ciperent utentes conjugibus, et res proprias possidentes ; quales habet catholica 
[ecclesia], et monachos, et clericos plurimos. Sed ideo isti heeretici sunt, quo- 
niam se ab ecclesia separantes, nullam spem putant eos habere, qui utuntur his 
rebus, quibus ipsi carent. Eneratitis isti similes sunt: nam et Apotactitee 
appellantur. 

» Thid. ¢. xlvi. (ibid. vol. viii. p. 12, at bottom.) Nuptias sine dubitatione 


Cuar. 1, § 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 271 


far as they could, forbidding men to beget children, for which 
marriage was ordained.” The Severians and Archonties said, 
“that woman was the work of the devil, and therefore they 
that married, fulfilled the work of the devil ;” as Epiphanius 
reports of them®. And Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of 
the same heretics, or some others like them, says”, “ They 
taught that marriage was downright fornication ; and that it 
was delivered by the devil.” 


Secr. VIII.—By the Hicracians and Hustathians. 


After these arose up one Hierax, whose disciples are called 
Hieracians, who taught with a little more modesty, but no less 
erroneously, that marriage was a thing belonging only to the 
Old Testament ; and, since the coming of Christ, it was no 
longer to have place; neither could any one in the married 
state obtain the kingdom of heaven. So Epiphanius repre- 
sents their doctrine*. And, upon this account, St. Austin 
says’, “ They admitted none but monks and nuns, and such as 
were unmarried, into their communion.” The same tenets 
were stiffly maintained by one Eustathius, whom Socrates ὃ 


condemnant, et quantum in ipsis est, prohibent, quando generare prohibent, 
propter quod conjugia copulanda sunt. 

© Epiphan. Heeres. xlv. sect. ii. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 388, at bottom.) Φάσ- 
κουσι δὲ Kai THY γυναῖκα εἶναι ἔργον τοῦ Larava’... διὰ τοῦτο τοὺς 
γάμῳ πλησιάζοντας τοῦ Σατανᾶ τὸ ἔργον πληροῦν λέγουσιν. 

P Clem. Stromat. iii. ο. ix. p. 540. [Not. hee 101 non exstant, nisi fortassis 
auctor noster respexerit ad verba quze ineunte pagina leguntur: Φασὶ γὰρ, ὅτι 
αὐτὸς εἶπεν ὁ Σωτὴρ, ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὰ ἔργα τῆς θηλείας" θηλείας μὲν, 
τῆς ἐπιθυμίας" ἔργα δὲ, γένεσιν καὶ φθοράν .---Οἰγίξο!ου.] (Lips. 1891. vol. ii. 
p. 247, 27.) 

4 Epiphan. Heres. Ixvii. sect. i. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 710, B 6.) SuyKeyw- 
ρῆσθαί φησι ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ διαθήκῃ, τῷ γάμῳ συνάπτεσθαι" ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς 
ἐνδημίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μηκέτι τὸν γάμον παραδέχεσθαι, μήτε δύνασθαι αὐτὸν 
κληρονομεῖν βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν. 

r Aug. de Her. ο. xlvii. (Bened. 1700. vol. viii. p. 13.) Monachos tantum et 
monachas et conjugia non habentes in communionem recipiunt. 

5. Soerat. lib. ii. 6. xiii. (Vales. Amstel. 1700. p. 128, C 6.) Tapety ἐκώλυε 
... καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τοὺς γεγαμηκότας τοῦ συνοικεσίου ἐχώριζε" (Ὁ) 3.) ἐν 
οἴκοις τε γεγαμηκότων εὐχὰς ἐκώλυε γενέσθαι; καὶ πρεσβυτέρου γυναῖκα 
ἔχοντος, ἣν νόμῳ λαϊκὸς ὧν ἠγάγετο, τὴν εὐλογίαν καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν, ὡς 
μῦσος ἐκκλίνειν ἐκέλευε. 


212 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


and Sozoment call bishop of Sebastia; and Valesius defends 
them in so saying", though Baronius labours to prove him to 
be another man*. However, it is agreed on all hands, that 
there was one of this name, who was so great an admirer of 
the monastic life, that, for the sake of it, he condemned all 
marriage in general, and taught, ‘that no one who lived in a 
married state, could have any hope in God.” Upon which, 
many women forsook their husbands, and husbands their 
Wives: many servants deserted their masters, to join with him 
in this new way of living ; and many withdrew from the public 
assemblies of the Church, and held private conventicles, upon 
pretence that they could not communicate with the ministers 
of the Church, because they were married persons: as the 
fathers of the Council of Gangra largely set forth his errors in 
their declaration against them ’. 


t Sozom. lib. iv. 6. xxiv. (ibid. 1695. p. 472, Ὁ 3.) (Reading, p. 169, 34.) 
ἙΕὐστάθιος, ὡς οὐ δέον διδάσκων τε καὶ πράττων Kai φρονῶν, ἀφῃρέθη τῆς 
ἐπισκοπῆς παρὰ τῶν ἐν Τάγγραις συνεληλυθότων. 

u Vales. in Soerat. lib. ii. 6. xliii. (Reading, p. 159.) Basilius in epistola Ixxiv., 
quam scripsit ad Occidentales contra Eustathium Sebastenum, Gangrensis Con- 
cilii nullam mentionem facit. Ex quo manifeste colligitur, tune, quum Basilius 
eam epistolam conscriberet, scripsit autem sub Valente, nondum celebratum 
fuisse Gangrense Concilium, in quo damnatus est Eustathius. Dicet fortasse 
aliquis id, quod a Baronio dictum est, Eustathium illum, qui in Gangrensi 
Synodo condemnatus est, diversum esse ab Eustathio Sebasteno. Verum hoe 
gratis dicitur, nec ullius auctoris testimonio nititur. 

x Baron. an. 361. n. xlv. (Luce, vol. v. p. 29.) At priusquam de his agamus, 
de Eustathio pravorum hujusmodi dogmatum architecto disserendum est. 
Hune fuisse Eustathium illum episcopum Sebastize in minori Armenia, Socratis 
atque Sozomeni et aliorum recentiorum, qui hos sunt sequuti, historicorum 
adsertione traditur. Quod quidem mihi nulla prorsus ratione probatur: quum 
e contrario plura sint, que dictis auctoribus magnopere adversentur. Et in 
primis, quod S. Basilius duabus epistolis, cum diligenti seopa cunctas ejusdem 
Eustathii Sebasteni turpitudines in unum congerat, easdemque singulas spec- 
tandas palam exponat; nullam prorsus de hujuscemodi heeresibus, vel ejus dam- 
natione, facta in Gangrensi Concilio, mentionem habuit: quae quidem ad totam 
ejus vitam sugillandam ante omnia ponenda esse videbantur, etc. 

yY Cone. Gangrens. in Priefat. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 413, D.) Kai yap ἐκ τοῦ 
καταμέμφεσθαι αὐτοὺς [τοὺς περὶ Εὐσταθιον], τὸν γάμον καὶ ὑποτίθεσθαι, 
Ore οὐδεὶς τῶν ἐν γάμῳ ὄντων ἐλπίδα παρὰ Θεῷ ἔχει, πολλαὲ γυναῖκες 
ὕπανδροι ἀπατηθεῖσαι τῶν ἑαυτῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀνεχώρησαν, καὶ ἄνδρες τῶν 
ἰδίων γυναικῶν. (E 5.) καὶ δοῦλοι δεσποτῶν ἀναχωροῦντες, καὶ διὰ τοῦ 
ξένου ἀμφιάσματος καταφρόνησιν κατὰ τῶν δεσποτῶν ποιούμενοι. (415, A 7.) 


Crap. I. § 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 978 


Secr. [Χ.--- Who were condemned in the Council of Gangra, 
and those called the Apostolical Canons. 


And to give some check to his errors, they used their 
authority in making several canons against them, having first 
deposed the author. In the first canon, they say’, “If any 
accuses marriage, or blames or abhors a woman, who is other- 
wise faithful and pious, for sleeping with her husband, as if 
upon that account she could not enter into the kingdom of 
God; let him be anathema.” The fourth canon is to the 
same purpose *, “ If any one condemn or separate from a mar- 
ried presbyter, under pretence that it is unlawful to partake of 
the oblation when such a one ministers ; let him be anathema.” 
The ninth, in like manner, “ If any one retire from the world, 
and live a virgin, or contain, as abominating marriage, and not 
for the excellency and holiness of a virgin-life ; let him be 
anathema.” The fourteenth’, “If any woman forsake her 
husband, minding to turn recluse out of an abhorrence of mar- 
riage, let her be anathema.” They add in the close of all’, 


καὶ πρεσβυτέρων γεγαμηκότων ὑπερφρονοῦντες, Kai THY λειτουργιῶν τῶν 
ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν γινομένων μὴ ἁπτόμενοι. 

z Cone. Gangrens. ο. i. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 416.) Εἴ τις τὸν γάμον μέμφοιτο, 
καὶ τὴν καθεύδουσαν μετὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς, οὖσαν πιστὴν Kal εὐλαβῆ, 
βδελύσσοιτο, ἢ μέμφοιτο ὡς ἂν μὴ δυναμένην εἰς βασιλείαν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀνα- 
θεμα ἔστω. 

a [bid. c. iv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 419.) Εἴ τις διακρίνοιτο παρὰ πρεσβυτέρου 
γεγαμηκότος, ὡς μὴ χρῆναι, λειτουργήσαντος αὐτοῦ, προσφορᾶς μεταλαμβά- 
γειν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

b Cone. Gangrens. 6. ix. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 419.) Εἴ τις παρθενεύοι, ἢ ἐγκρα- 
τεύοιτο, ὡς ἂν βδελύττων, THY γάμων ἀναχωρήσας, Kai μὴ Ov αὐτὸ τὸ 
καλὸν καὶ ἅγιον τῆς παρθενίας, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

¢ Ibid. ο. xiv. (ibid. vol. ii. p. 419.) Εἴ τις γυνὴ καταλιμπάνοι τὸν ἄνδρα, 
καὶ ἀναχωρεῖν ἐθέλοι, βδελυττομένη τὸν ydpov, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 

4 Ibid. ο. xxi. (ibid. vol. ii. p. 424.) Tatra δὲ γράφομεν, οὐκ ἐκκόπτοντες 
τοὺς ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς ἀσκεῖσθαι βουλομένους" ἀλλὰ 
τοὺς λαμβάνοντας τὴν ὑπόθεσιν τῆς ἀσκήσεως εἰς ὑπερηφανίαν, κατὰ τῶν 
ἀφελέστερον βιούντων ἐπαιρομένους τε καὶ παρὰ τὰς γραφὰς καὶ τοὺς ἐκκλη- 
σιαστικοὺς κανόνας, καὶ νεωτερισμοὺς εἰσάγοντας" ἡμεῖς τοιγαροῦν καὶ παρ- 
θενίαν μετὰ ταπεινοφροσύνης θαυμάζομεν, καὶ ἐγκράτειαν μετὰ σεμνότητος 
καὶ θεοσεβείας γινομένην ἀποδεχόμεθα: καὶ ἀναχώρησιν τῶν ἐγκοσμίων μετὰ 
ταπεινοφροσύνης ἀποδεχόμεθα: καὶ γάμου συνοίκησιν σεμνὴν τιμῶμεν" 
(p. 421.) καὶ πάντα συνελόντας εἰπεῖν, τὰ παραδοθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν θείων 
γραφῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν παραδόσεων ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ γίνεσθαι εὐχό- 
μεθα. 

VOL. VIL. T 


BTA THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


‘We write not these things to cut off any from the Church 
of God, who are minded to give themselves to an ascetie life, 
according to the Scriptures, but only those who make such a 
life an occasion of pride, to lift themselves up above those who 
live in a more plain and simple manner, introducing novelties 
against the Seriptures and the rules of the Church. We ad- 
mire virginity, when accompanied with humility ; and applaud 
continency, when attended with gravity and piety; and allow 
of a retirement from worldly affairs, when it is done with 
humility ; but we also honour cohabitation in chaste marriage ; 
and, in a word, desire that all things may be done in the 
Church, according to the traditions delivered to us in Scrip- 
ture, and rules of the apostles.” By the traditions of the 
apostles, these fathers might mean, either the rules about 
marriage delivered by the apostles in Scripture, or the rules 
given in those which are called the Apostolical Canons, which 
were, at that time, of common use in the Church. One of 
which runs in these terms®: “If any bishop, presbyter, or 
deacon, or any other of the sacred roll, abstain from marriage, 
or flesh, or wine, not for exercise of an ascetic life, but out of 
abhorrence, thereby blaspheming and calumniating the work- 
manship of God, and forgetting that God created all things 
very good; and made man male and female ; let him amend, 
or else be deposed and cast out of the Church. And so let a 
layman be treated likewise.” 

By all this it is evident that the Church had a mighty 
struggle with those ancient heretics, who inveighed bitterly 
against marriage under the Gospel state, and wrought upon 
many weak minds to commit great disorders, under pretence 
of a more refined way of living and fanciful perfection, which 
the Gospel had nowhere enjoined as of necessity to mankind ; 
but only they who were able to receive it, might receive it at 
their own liberty and discretion, provided they made their 


€ Can. Apostol, li. 1. (ibid. vol. i. p. 37.) Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, 
ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ὕλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ, γάμων Kai κρεῶν καὶ 
οἴνου, οὐ δι’ ἄσκησιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ βδελυρίαν ἀπέχεται, ἐπιλανθανόμενος, bre 
, A , ’ eo ” 4 ~ ’ , © A SY »” 
πάντα καλὰ λίαν, καὶ OTe ἄρσεν Kai θῆλυ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, 
ἀλλὰ βλασφημῶν διαβάλλει τὴν δημιουργίαν" ἢ διορθούαθω, ἢ καθαιρείσθω, 
καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποβαλλέσθω. ὡσαύτως δὲ λαϊκός. 


Cuap. I. § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 975 
own liberty no snare for other men’s consciences, nor imposed 
a matter of free choice, as a necessary obligation upon the rest 
of mankind. 


Secr. X.—The Error of the Montanists about Second Marriages ; 
and of the Novatians also. 


The Church had also another contest with the Montanists 
about second marriages. Theodoret says‘, “ Montanus made 
laws to dissolve marriage.” And the same was objected to 
him by Apollonius, an ancient writer in Eusebius *, who 
opposed the new spirit of Montanus, when he first began to 
appear in the world. “This is the man that teaches the dis- 
solution of marriages,” says he, in his charge against him, 
which some later writers, by mistake, understand of his pro- 
hibiting marriage in general, as the heretics of whom we have 
just been speaking. Whereas Montanus did not deny the 
lawfulness of marriage, but only second marriages ; as is evi- 
dent from Tertullian, who was the chief advocate of that 
heretic against the Church. His books, ‘ De Monogamia,.’ 
and ‘ Exhortatio Castitatis,’ were written purposely on this 
subject: in both which he declaims very heartily indeed against 
second marriages, as no better than adultery ; but he never 
gives the least intimation that he or any other Montanist had 
the same opinion of the first. Nay, he begins his book of 
Monogamy with these remarkable words": ‘‘ Heretics take 
away marriage, and the ‘ psychici,’ or ‘ carnal men’” [by whom 
he means the Catholics], “repeat it: the one marry not so 


f Theodoret. Heeret. Fab. lib. iii. 6. ii. (Schulze, Hal. 1769. vol. iv. p. 341.) 
Οὗτος τὸν γάμον διαλύειν ἐνομοθέτησε. 

& Euseb. lib. ν. ο. xviii. (Vales. p. 149, D 6.) (Reading, 1720. p. 233, 38.) 
Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάμων. 

h Tertul. de Monogam. e. i. (Paris. 1664. p. 525, A.) Heeretici nuptias 
auferunt, Psychici ingerunt. Illi nee semel, isti non semel nubunt. . . . Verum 
neque continentia ejusmodi laudanda, quia heeretica est ; neque licentia defen- 
denda, quia psychica est. Illa blasphemat, ista luxuriat. Illa destruit nuptia- 
rum Deum, ista confundit. Penes nos autem, quos Spiritales merito dici facit 
agnitio spiritalium charismatum, continentia tam religiosa est, quam licentia 
verecunda, quandoquidem ambze cum Creatore sunt. Continentia legem nup- 
tiarum honorat, licentia temperat. Illa non cogitur, ista regitur. Illa arbitrium 
habet, heee modum. Unum matrimonium noyimus, sicut unum Deum, 

r 2 


= 


276 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


much as once; the other marry more than once. But neither 
is such continency to be praised, because it is heretical; nor 
such liberty to be defended, because it is carnal. The one 
destroys the God of marriage, the other confounds him ; the 
one blasphemes him, the other is luxurious against him. But 
among us, who are deservedly called spiritual, from the ac- 
knowledgment of spiritual gifts, continency is religious, and 
our liberty observed with modesty and moderation, because 
they both stand with the Creator. We acknowledge one 
matrimony, as we do one God:” so that it is plain, the 
Montanists ought not to be charged with denying the lawful- 
ness of marriage in general, which they defended against other 
heretics, but only the liberty of second and third marriages, 
which they rejected, upon the pretence of receiving some new 
revelations from the Holy Ghost. And, therefore, when the 
ancients say, they taught men to dissolve marriage, or forbid 
men to marry, they are always to be understood as speaking 
of second marriages, and not of the first, as Epiphanius’ well 
explains himself, when he writes against them. 

The Novatians were in the same sentiments with the Mon- 
tanists, rejecting all from communion who were twice married : 
which we learn not only from Epiphanius *, and other private 
writers against them, but also from the rule made in the great 
Council of Nice concerning them!, ‘That when any of the 
Novatians returned to the Catholic Church, they should be 


i Epiphan. Heres, xlviii. sect. ix. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 410, Ὁ 4.) Εἰ δή 
τις κατὰ ἀσθένειαν ἐπιδεηθείη, μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν τῆς ἰδίας γαμετῆς; 
συναφθῆναι δευτέρῳ γάμῳ, οὐκ ἀπαγορεύει τοῦτο ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας, 
τουτέστι τὸν μὴ ὥντα ἱερέα: οὗτοι δὲ κωλύουσι κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον, Κωλυόν- 
των γαμεῖν" ἐκβάλλουσι γὰρ τὸν δευτέρῳ γάμῳ συναφθέντα, καὶ ἀναγκά- 
ζουσι μὴ δευτέρῳ γάμῳ συνάπτεσθαι. 

k Epiphan. Heres. lix. sect. iv. (Colon. 1682. vol. i. p. 496, A 4.) Ta εἰς 
ἱερωσύνην παραδοθέντα διὰ τὸ ἐξοχώτατον τῆς ἱερουργίας, εἰς πάντας 
ἐνόμισαν ἴσως φέρεσθαι: ἀκηκοότες, ὅτι δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον 
εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, ἐγκρατῆ, κ. τ. λ. 

1 Cone. Nie. 6. viii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 32.) Περὶ τῶν ὀνομαζόντων μὲν tav- 
rove καθαρούς ποτε, προσερχομένων δὲ τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ 
καὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ, ὥστε χειροθετουμένους αὐτοὺς μένειν οὕτως ἐν τῷ 
κλήρῳ: πρὸ πάντων δὲ τοῦτο ὁμολογῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἐγγράφως προσήκει, ὅτι 
συνθήσονται καὶ ἀκολουθήσουσι τοῖς τῆς καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλη- 
σίας δόγμασι" τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, καὶ διγαμοῖς κοινωνεῖν, kK. T. λ. 


Caap. II. $1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. viva 


obliged to make profession, in writing, that they would submit 
to the decrees of the Catholic Church, particularly in this, that 
they would διγάμοις κοινωνεῖν, ° communicate with digamists,’” 
or those that were married a second time. Which shows us 
both what was the opinion of the Novatians upon this point, 
and what was the general sense of the Catholic Church in 
opposition to it. And if any private writers have spoken any 
thing harshly or indecently of second marriages, their opinion 
is not either to be defended or urged as the sentiment of the 
Church; as I have had occasion to show in a former™ Book, 
concerning the discipline of the Church, where this matter is 
more fully discussed. 





CHAPTER II. 


OF THE JUST IMPEDIMENTS OF MARRIAGE IN PARTICULAR 
CASES, SHOWING WHAT PERSONS MIGHT, OR MIGHT NOT, 
BE LAWFULLY JOINED TOGETHER; AND OF THE TIMES 
AND SEASONS WHEN THE CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE 
WAS FORBIDDEN. 


Secr. 1.—Ohristians not to marry with Infidels, or Jews, or 
Heretics, or any of a different Religion. 


Havine thus given an account of the several opinions and 
practices of heretics, derogatory either to marriage in general, 
or to the repetition of it after the decease of a former consort ; 
I now come to show what restraints the Church herself laid 
upon some particular sorts of persons, by her rules prohibiting 
them to marry, either for some time, or, at least, not in such 
circumstances as were thought just impediments of marriage 
in certain particular cases. Of this nature was the rule, for- 
bidding Christians to marry with infidels or heathens, because 
of the danger and scandal that would attend the being joined 
so unequally with unbelievers. The apostle leaves the woman, 


m Book xvi. chap. xi. sect. vii. vol. vi. p. 250. 


278 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


whose husband is dead, at liberty to marry to whom she will, 
only with this proviso, ‘“‘ That it be in the Lord” (1 Cor. vii. 
39): which the ancients generally so understood, as to take it 
for a command, that Christians should marry only Christians, 
and not infidels, or persons of a different religion. Cyprian ὃ, 
in his book of Testimonies out of Scripture, brings this text, 
and two others, out of St. Paul’s Epistles, to prove that 
Christians ought not to join in matrimony with the Gentiles. 
His other proofs are (1 Cor. vi. 15), ‘ Know ye not that your 
bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the 
members of Christ, and make them members of a _ harlot? 
God forbid.” And (2 Cor. vi. 14), “Be ye not unequally 
yoked with unbelievers.” And in his book ‘ De Lapsis®’ he 
complains, that, among other causes why God sent that terri- 
ble persecution upon Christians, one reason was that many of 
them had joined themselves in matrimony with infidels, and 
prostituted the members of Christ to the infidels. In lke 
manner Tertullian, before him, gives the same sense of the 
words of the apostle: “For certainly,” says he, “in pre- 
seribing that the woman should only marry in the Lord, lest 
any believer should contract matrimony with a heathen, he 
defends the law of the Creator, which every where forbids 
marrying with those of another nation,” or heathens of another 
religion. So, again’, ‘‘ She that was to marry, was only to 
marry in the Lord; that is, not to a heathen, but to a bro- 
ther: because the old law also forbade the marrying with 
strangers*.” He pursues this argument at large in his second 


a Cyprian. Testimon. ad Quirin. lib. iii. ¢. xii. (Amstel. 1700. p. 60.) Cui 
vult nubat, tantum in Domino. 

Ὁ Thid. de Lapsis. (Oxon. p. 123, line 7 from bottom.) (p, 88, Fell. Amstelod. 
1700.) Jungere cum infidelibus vinculum matrimonii, prostituere Gentilibus 
membra Christi. 

¢ Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. v. e vii. (Paris. 1664. p. 469, Ὁ 6.) Certe prze- 
scribens, Tantum in Domino esse nubendum; ne qui fidelis ethnicum matri- 
monium contrahat, legem tuetur Creatoris, allophylorum nuptias ubique prohi- 
bentis. 

a Thid. de Monogam. e. vii. (ibid. p. 529, A 10.) Et illa nuptura in Domino 
habet nubere, id est, non ethnico, sed fratri: quia et vetus lex adimit conju- 
gium allophylorum. 

e Ibid. ce. xi. (ibid. p. 532, C 10.) Propterea adjecerit, tantum in Domino ; 
ne scilicet post fidem ethnico se nubere posse preesumeret. 


Cuar. 11. $1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 279 


Book to his own Wife, where, urging first the same text of 
the apostle, he concludes *, “ that it is fornication and adultery 
for Christians to join in marriage with heathens, and that they 
who do so, ought to be cast out of the communion of the 
Church.” And in another place he says®, “Christians did 
not marry with heathens, for fear they should draw them into 
idolatry, which was the first rite that was used in celebrating 
their marriages.” St. Jerome urges the same authorities of 
the apostle against such marriages: ‘“‘ When the apostle,” 
says he, ‘adds ‘only in the Lord,’ he thereby cuts off all 
making marriages with the heathen. Concerning which sort 
of marriages, he says, in another place, ‘ Be ye not unequally 
yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteous- 
ness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light 
with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? 
Or what part hath he that believeth, with an infidel?’” St. 
Jerome, indeed, in another place, laments the transgression of 
these rules, and sharply reproves the transgressors‘. ‘* Now 


f Ibid. ad Uxor. lib. ii. ¢. iii. (ibid. p. 168, B 5.) Heee quum ita sint, fideles 
Gentilium matrimonia subeuntes, stupri reos esse constat, et arcendos ab omni 
communicatione fraternitatis, ex litteris Apostoli dicentis, cum ejusmodi nee 
cibum quidem sumendum, 

& Ibid. de Coron. Milit. ο. xiii. (ibid. p. 109, A 11.) Ideo non nubamus ethni- 
cis, ne nos ad idololatriam usque deducant, a qua apud illos nuptize incipiunt. 

h Hieron. Epist. xi. ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. 
p. 903, A 10.) Quod addidit apostolus, ‘tantum in Domino,’ amputat ethnicorum 
conjugia, de quibus in alio loco dixerat: ‘ Nolite jugum ducere cum infidelibus. 
Que enim participatio justitiz cum iniquitate? Aut quze societas lucis cum 
tenebris ? Quz conventio Christi cum Belial? Aut que pars fideli cum 
infideli? Qui consensus templo Dei cum idolis ” 

i Hieron. cont. Jovin. lib. i. 6. v. (Venet. vol. ii. p. 251, E 4.) Nune plereeque 
mulieres, contemnentes Apostoli jussionem, junguntur gentilibus, et templa 
Christi idolis prostituunt: nec intelligunt se corporis ejus partem esse, cujus et 
costze sunt. Imgnoscit Apostolus infidelium conjunctioni, que habentes, maritos 
in Christum postea crediderunt: non his, quae, quum Christianze essent, nup- 
serunt gentilibus, ad quas alibi loquitur: ‘ Nolite jugum ducere cum infidelibus. 
Que enim participatio justitie cum iniquitate? Aut que societas luci ad 
tenebras? Que autem conventio Christi ad Belial? Aut quee pars fideli cum 
infideli? Qui autem consensus templo Dei cum idolis? Vos enim estis tem- 
plum Dei vivi.’ Licet enim in me szevituras sciam plurimas matronarum ; 
licet eadem impudentia qua Dominum contempserunt, in me pulicem et Chris- 
tianorum minimum debacchaturas ; tamen dicam quod sentio: loquar quod me 
Apostolus docuit, non illas justitia esse, sed iniquitatis; non lucis, sed tene- 


2980 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


many women,” says he, “ despising the command of the 
apostle, are married to heathens, not considering that they 
become part of that body whose ribs they are. The apostle 
pardons those who were married to heathens before they 
believed in Christ, but not those who, being Christians, after- 
ward were married to Gentiles: to whom he thus speaks in 
another place, ‘ Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers,’ ὅσο. 
1 am sensible,” says St. Jerome, “I shall anger and enrage 
many matrons, who, as they have despised their Lord (in being 
married to heathens), so they will rant at me, who am but a 
flea, and the meanest of all Christians: yet I will speak what 
I think, and say what the apostle has taught me; that they 
are not on the side of righteousness, but unrighteousness ; not 
of light, but of darkness; not of Christ, but of Belial; not 
temples of the living God, but temples and idols of dead men. 
Would you have me speak more plainly, that a Christian 
woman ought not to be married to a heathen? Hear the 
same apostle: ‘The woman is bound,’ says he, ‘as long as 
her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at 
liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord;’ 
that is, to a Christian. He that allows second and third mar- 
riages in the Lord, forbids even a first marriage with a heathen. 
I say this, that they who compare marriage to virginity, may 
yet, at least, understand that digamy and trigamy (second and 
third marriages) are far above such marriages with heathens.” 
St. Ambrose is no less earnest in dissuading all Christians 
from engaging in such unequal marriages, not only with hea- 


brarum; non Christi, sed Belial; non templa Dei viventis, sed fana et idola 
mortuorum. Vis apertius discere, quod Christianze omnino non liceat ethnico 
nubere? Audi eumdem Apostolum, ‘ Mulier,’ inquit, ¢ alligata est legi, quanto 
tempore vir ejus vivit: quod si dormierit vir ejus, liberata est: cui vult nubat, 
tantum in Domino,’ id est, Christiano, Qui secundas tertiasque nuptias concedit 
in Domino, primas cum ethnico prohibet. Unde et Abraham adjurat servum 
in femore suo, hoe est, in Christo, qui de ejus erat semine nasciturus, ut filio 
suo Isaac alienigenam non addueat uxorem. Et Ezras offensam Dei hujusce- 
modi uxorum repudiatione compescit. Et Malachias propheta, ‘ Preevaricatus 
est,’ inquit, ‘Judas, et abominationem fecit in Israel et in Jerusalem. Polluit 
enim sanctum Domini, et dilexit, et habuit filiam Dei alieni. Disperdat Domi- 
nus virum qui fecerit hoc, magistrum, et discipulum, de tabernaculis Jacob, et 
offerentem munera Domino virtutum.’ Heee ideirco dixi, ut qui nuptias vir- 
ginitati comparant, sciant saltem, nuptias digamiz et trigamiz subjiciendas. 


ὕπαρ. II. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 28] 


thens, but heretics; pathetically exhorting parents, who had 
the chief hand and authority in disposing of their children, to 
beware of such dangerous matches. ‘‘ Beware,” says he!, “ὁ 
Christian, that thou give not thy daughter to a Gentile or a 
Jew: beware, I say, that thou take not a wife to thee who is 
a Gentile, or a Jew, or an alien; that is, a heretic, or any one 
that is a stranger to the faith.” And, again *, writing to one 
Vigilius some instructions about the execution of the minis- 
terial office, he bids him teach the people carefully this one 
thing,—not to join in matrimony with strangers, but with 
Christian families. ‘‘ For though we read of many people 
destroyed, with a heavy destruction, for violating the laws of 
hospitality, and of dreadful wars commenced upon uncleanness, 
yet there is scarce any thing more grievous than marrying with 
strange women ; which is both an incentive to lust and dis- 
cord, and the forge of sacrilege. For when marriage ought 
to be sanctified with the sacerdotal veil and benediction, how 
can that be called a marriage where there is no agreement in 
faith? When their prayers ought to be in common, how can 
there be any mutual conjugal love, where there is such dis- 
parity in their devotion? Many men by this means have 
frequently betrayed their faith, as the Israelites did in the 
wilderness, when by the seducement of the Midianitish women 
they joined themselves to Baalpeor.” The author also of the 
Short Notes upon the Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose, 
gives the same interpretation of St. Paul’s words!: ‘“ ‘ Let 


j Ambros. de Abrahamo, 6. ix. (Paris. 1642. vol. i. p. 239.) (Paris, 1836. 
vol. i. p. 211.) Cave, Christiane, gentili aut Judzeo filiam tuam tradere. Cave, 
inquam, gentilem aut Judzeam atque alienigenam, hoc est, hzereticam, et omnem 
alienam a fide tua uxorem accersias tibi. 

k Tbid. Epist. Ixx. ad Vigil. (Bened. 1686. vol. ii. p. 844, A 4.) (Paris. 1836. 
vol. iv. p. 261.) Legimus peremtos gravi populos excidio, propter violata jura 
hospitii. Propter libidinem quoque commissa bella atrocia. (7.) Sed prope 
nihil gravius quam copulari alienigenze, ubi et libidinis et discordize incentiva, 
et sacrilegii flagitia conflantur. Nam quum ipsum conjugium velamine sacer- 
dotali, et benedictione sanctificari oporteat ; quomodo potest conjugium dici, ubi 
non est fidei concordia? Quum oratio communis esse debeat, quomodo inter 
dispares devotione potest esse conjugii communis caritas? Szepe plerique, capti 
amore feminarum, fidem suam prodiderunt ; ut patrum populus in Beelphegor. 

! Ambros. in 1 Cor. vii. 39. (Bened. Paris. 1686. vol. ii. append. p. 138, D.) 
‘Cui vult nubat, tantum in Domino: ‘tantum in Domino;’ hoe est, ut sine 


982 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


the woman marry only in the Lord: let her marry without 
suspicion of uncleanness, and let.er marry to a man of her 
own religion. This is to marry in the Lord.” In like manner 
Sedulius™ and Theodoret® upon the same place: “ Let her 
marry to one of the same faith, to a godly man, in sobriety, 
and according to the law.” Upon this account, St. Austin, 
being solicited by one Rusticus, a heathen, to give his consent 
that his son might marry a certain woman that was a Christian, 
tells him°, ‘That though it was absolutely in his power to 
give any virgin in marriage, yet he could not give a Christian 
to any but a Christian.” This St. Austin spake according to 
the known rules and practice of the Church: for though he 
himself, in his own private opinion, did not think such mar- 
riages so clearly and expressly forbidden in the New Testament 
as others did, yet he thought there were probable reasons to 
make it a very doubtful case: and that was enough to deter 
any one from venturing on it, and also sufficient to oblige the 
ministers of the Church not to give any encouragement to it, 
either by consenting to such marriages, or authorizing them in 
their ministration. Yet if the question were, Whether such 
persons, so offending against the rules of the Church, were to 
be denied either baptism or communion ; he reckons this to be 
a matter of some doubt, not so clearly to be resolved as the 
question about manifest fornicators and adulterers. ‘* The 
manifest crimes of uncleanness,” says he?, ‘do absolutely 


suspicione turpitudinis nubat, et religionis suze viro nubat: hoe est, in Domino 
nubere. 

m Sedul. in 1 Cor. vii. 39. Cui voluerit, nubat.] Tantummodo Christiano, non 
Gentili. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. vi. p. 542, G 3.) 

n Theodoret. in 1 Cor. vii. 39. (Schulze, Hale, 1769. vol. iii. p. 212.) Μόνον 
ἐν Κυρίῳ, τουτέστιν ὁμοπίστῳ, εὐσεβεῖ, σωφρόνως, ἐννόμως. 

° Aug. Epist. οοχχχῖν, ad Rusticum. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 668, F 3.) Cer- 
tissime noveris, etiamsi nostree absolutze sit potestatis, quamlibet puellam in 
conjugium tradere, tradi a nobis Christianam nisi Christiano non posse, 

Pp Aug. de Fide et Oper. ς. xix. (Bened. 1700. vol. vi. p. 136, F 5.) Quee 
manifesta sunt impudicitize crimina, omni modo a baptismo prohibenda sunt, 
nisi mutatione voluntatis et poenitentia corrigantur: quae autem dubia, omni 
modo conandum est, ne fiant tales conjunctiones. Quid enim opus est in tantum 
discrimen ambiguitatis caput immittere ? Si autem factze fuerint, nescio utrum 
ii qui fecerint, similiter ad baptismum non debere videantur admitti. Vid. 
August. de Adulterin. Nupt. lib. i. ὁ. xxv. (Bened. 1679. vol. vi. p. 402.) Non 


3 





Cuar. I. 81. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 283 


debar men from baptism, unless they be corrected by a change 
of will and repentance: « 1 in doubtful cases, as marrying 
with heathens, we are by all means to endeavour that such 
marriages be not contracted: for what need have any persons 
to run their heads into so great danger in doubtful matters ? 
But if such marriages be made, I am not sure that the parties 
concerned ought to be denied baptism in this case as in the 
former.” Indeed the punishment of such contracts was not 
always and every where the same in the Church, though it was 
agreed on all hands to prohibit and discourage them as dan- 
gerous and dubious, or manifestly sinful. Some canons barely 
forbid the thing, without assigning any ecclesiastical punish- 
ment to the commission of it. So in the Council of Laodicea, 
one canon says, ‘That they who are of the Church, ought 
not to give their children in marriage promiscuously to here- 
tics.” And another’, “‘ That they ought not to marry with 
all heretics indifferently, nor give their sons or daughters to 
them, unless they will promise to become Christians.” The 
prohibition in the third Council of Carthage extends only to 
the sons and daughters of bishops and the clergy ἡ, that they 
should not marry with Gentiles, heretics, or schismatics, but 
particularly mentions no others. The Council of Agde runs 
in the same words with the Council of Laodicea *, “ That none 
shall marry with heretics, unless they will promise to become 
Catholic Christians.” And so the Council of Chalcedon" for- 


enim in Evangelio vel ullis Apostolicis litteris sine ambiguitate declaratum 
esse recolo; utrum Dominus prohibuerit fideles infidelibus jungi. 

4 Cone. Laodie. ¢. x. (Labbe, vol. 1. p. 1497.) Περὶ τοῦ, μὴ δεῖν τοὺς τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας ἀδιαφόρως πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν συνάπτειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν παιδία 
αἱρετικοῖς. 

r Cone. Laodic. ο. xxxi. (Labbe, νο]. i. p. 1501.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ πρὸς πάντας 
αἱρετικοὺς ἐπιγαμίας ποιεῖν, ἢ διδόναι υἱοὺς, ἢ θυγατέρας, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον 
λαμβάνειν, εἴγε ἐπαγγέλλοιντο Χριστιανοὶ γίνεσθαι. 

5. Cone. Carth. III. 6. xii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1169.) Placuit, ut filii et filixe 
episcoporum, vel quorumlibet clericorum, gentilibus, vel heereticis, vel schisma- 
ticis matrimonio non jungantur. 

t Cone. Agath. ο. lxvii. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1894.) Non oportet cum heereticis 
miscere connubia, et vel filios vel filias dare, sed potius accipere, si tamen profi- 
tentur Christianos futuros esse se et Catholicos. 

u Cone. Chaleed. ὁ. xiv. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 762, E 3.) Μήτε μὴν συνάπτειν 
πρὸς γάμον αἱρετικῷ, ἢ ᾿Ιουδαίῳ, ἢ “EMnve εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἐπαγγέλλοιτο μετα- 


28 A THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


bids the readers and singers among the inferior clergy to 
marry either Jew, Gentile, or heretic, unless they would pro- 
mise to embrace the orthodox faith: and this is enjoined the 
clergy under pain of canonical censure. But the first Council 
of Arles goes a little further with respect to the whole body 
of Christians, and orders*, ‘“‘ That if any virgins who are 
believers be married to Gentiles, they shall for some time be 
separated from communion.” The Council of Eliberis not 
only forbids such marriages in one canon, for fear of spiritual 
adultery (that is, apostasy from the-faith) ; though there was 
a pretence, that young women were so numerous, that they 
could not find Christian husbands enough for them; but also, 
in another canon’, orders such parents as gave their daughters 
in marriage to Jews or heretics, to be five years cast out of 
the communion of the Church. And a third canon orders ?, 
“That if any parents married their daughters to idol priests, 
they should not be received into communion, even at their 
last hour.” The second Council of Orleans ἢ forbids all Chris- 
tians to marry Jews, because all such marriages were deemed 
unlawful: and if any, upon admonition, refused to dissolve 
such marriages, they were to be denied all benefit of commu- 
nion. ‘Thus stood the discipline of the Church at that time 


τίθεσθαι εἰς τὴν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν τὸ συναπτόμενον πρόσωπον τῷ ὀρθοδόξῳ" 
εἰ δέ τις τοῦτον τὸν ὕρον παραβαίη τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου, ἐπιτιμίῳ [κανονικῷ] 
κανονικῶς ὑποκείσθω. 

x Cone. Arelat. I. ¢. xi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1428.) De puellis fidelibus, que 
gentilibus junguntur, placuit, ut aliquanto tempore a communione separentur. 

y Cone. Illiber. ὁ. xv. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 972.) Propter copiam puellarum, 
gentilibus minime in matrimonium dandze sunt virgines Christiane, ne zetas in 
flore tumens in adulterio animee resolvatur. 

2 Tbid. 6. xvi. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 972.) Heeretici, si se transferre noluerint 
ad ecclesiam Catholicam, nec ipsis Catholicas dandas esse puellas: sed neque 
Judzeis, neque ethnicis dare placuit: eo quod nulla possit esse societas fideli 
cum infideli. Si contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstineri per quinquen- 
nium placet. 

4 Cone. Illiber. 6. xvii. Si qui forte sacerdotibus idolorum filias suas junx- 
erint, placuit, nec in fine eis dandam esse communionem. 

b Cone. Aurel. II. ¢. xix. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1782.) Placuit, ut nullus Chris- 
tianus Judzeam, neque Judzeus Christianam in matrimonio ducat uxorem; quia 
inter hujusmodi personas illicitas nuptias esse censemus. Qui si commoniti a 
consortio hoe se separare distulerint, a communionis gratia sunt sine dubio sub- 
movendi, 


Cuap. 11. 8 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 985 


in reference to all such marriages. Nor was the civil law 
wanting to confirm the ecclesiastical with its sanction: for by 
an edict, published by Valentinian and Theodosius, which is 
twice repeated in the Theodosian Code‘, and stands still as 
law in the Justinian Code, If any Jew presumes to marry a 
Christian woman, or a Christian takes to wife a Jewish woman, 
their crime is put into the same class with adultery ; that is, 
made a capital crime; and not only relations, but any one has 
liberty to accuse and prosecute them upon such transgression. 
Constantius, before this, had made it a capital crime for a 
Jew? to marry a Christian woman, but laid no penalty upon 
the Christian marrying a Jew. But this being thought a 
defect by Theodosius, he supplied it by that new law, which 
more expressly made it capital for them both. And so all 
possible restraint was laid upon such marriages, that the civil 
power could think of. 


Sect. I1.—A/l/ Christians obliged to acquaint the Church with 
their Designs of Marriage before they completed it. 


And to prevent the inconveniences attending such unequal 
marriages, all Christians were obliged to acquaint the bishop 
of the Church beforehand with their design of marrying, that 
if any such obstacle appeared, they might be dissuaded and 
diverted from it. Thus Ignatius in his epistle to Polycarp °: 
“ΤῸ becomes those that marry, and those that are given in 


¢ Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. ἢ. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. i. 
Ρ. 278.) Ne quis Christianam mulierem in matrimonium Judzeus accipiat, neque 
Judzeam Christianus conjugio sortiatur: nam si quis aliquid hujusmodi admi- 
serit, adulterii vicem commissi hujus crimen obtinebit; libertate in accusandum 
publicis quoque vocibus relaxata. Nearly the same words are repeated in 
Codex Justin. lib. i. tit. ix. de Judzeis. (Amstel. 1663. p. 36.) Cod. Theod. 
lib. ix. tit. vil. ad legem Juliam de Adulteris, leg. v. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iii. 
p. 62.) 

4 Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. viii. de Judzeis, leg. vi. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. vi. 
p- 233.) Quod ad mulieres pertinet, quas Judeei in turpitudinis suze duxere con- 
sortium, in gynecio nostro ante versatas, placet easdem restitui in gynecio: 
idque in reliquum observari, ne Christianas mulieres suis jungant flagitiis ; vel, 
si hoe fecerint, capitali periculo subjungetur. 

e Ignat. Epist. ad Polycarp. sect. y. (Coteler. vol. ii. p. 42.) Πρέπει τοῖς 
γαμοῦσι Kai ταῖς γαμουμέναις μετὰ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τὴν ἕνωσιν 





ποιεῖσθαι: ἵνα ὁ γάμος ἢ κατὰ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ μὴ κατ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν. 


286 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII, 


marriage, to take upon them this yoke, with the consent or 
direction of the bishop, that their marriage may be according 
to the will of God, and not their own lusts.” And this is 
evident from several passages in Tertullian, who often speaks 
of taking advice and counsel beforehand about this matter 
from the Church. For speaking of some women who were 
married to heathens, he says‘, ‘He could not but wonder 
either at their own petulancy, or the prevarication and unfaith- 
fulness of their counsellors :” intimating, that in this case they 
had taken counsel of others, and not of the Church, who would 
not have given them counsel and consent to have married 
heathens. In another place, says he 8, “ How shall 1 suf- 
ficiently set forth the happiness of that marriage, which the 
Church brings about by her procurement, and the oblation 
confirms, and the angels report it when done, and the Father 
ratifies itt” Here, not to dispute at present the meaning of 
any words, ‘the Church’s bringing about the marriage’ must, 
at least, signify its being done by her advice and counsel, if 
not her ministry and benediction; which some are unwilling 
to allow; but of this more by and by. To proceed: Tertul- 
lian, when he was turned Montanist, dissuaded all widows from 
marrying a second time, and among other arguments he urges 
them with this®: ‘* With what face canst thou request such a 
second marriage of those who are not allowed themselves to 
have what thou askest of them; viz. of the bishop, who is but 
once married ; and of the presbyters and deacons, who are in 
the same state; and of the widows, whose society thou hast 
refused?” Here he plainly says, that the whole Church was 


f Tertul. ad Uxor, lib. ii. c. ii, (Paris. 1664. p. 167, B 1.) Quum queedam 
istis diebus nuptias suas de ecclesia tolleret, ac gentili conjungeretur, idque ab 
aliis retro factum recordarer, miratus aut ipsarum petulantiam, aut consiliario- 
rum preevaricationem, ete. 

δ Ibid. ς. ix. (ibid. p. 171, C 6.) Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem 
ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliat, et confirmat oblatio, et obsignat bene- 
dictio; angelo renunciant, Pater rato habet ἢ 

h Tertul. de Monogam. ec. xi. (Paris. 1664. p. 531, C 5.) Qualis es, id matri- 
monium postulans, quod eis a quibus postulas, non licet habere ; ab episcopo 
monogamo, a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti; a viduis, quarum 
sectam in te recusasti? Et illi plane sie dabunt viros et uxores, quomodo 
buccellas. Hoe enim est apud illos, Omni petenti te dabis; et conjungent vos in 
ecclesia Virgine, unius Christi unica sponsa, ete. 


Cuap. 11. 8 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 297 


a 


acquainted with any person’s intention to marry, who, as it 
were, asked leave of every order of the Church, even the 
widows as well as the clergy, that if any one had any just 
objection against them, as, that they were about to marry a 
heathen, or Jew, or heretic, or one too nearly related, or with- 
out consent of parents, or any thing of the like nature, a 
timely intimation might be given of it, and such marriage be 
prevented, or, at least, not be authorized and ratified by the 
consent of the Church. This is plainly the meaning of peti- 
tioning the Church in the case of marriage: not that the 
Church assumed any arbitrary power of granting or refusing 
marriage to any persons, but only of disallowing those against 
whom there lay some just objection ; as this, in the first place, 
of any one’s being about to join in matrimony with a heathen ; 
which, though it might be effected in those times by other 
means, yet it was never to be done by the agnizing, or consent, 
or ministration of the Church; as appears from the whole 
account that has here been given of the Church’s practice in 
relation to such marriages with heathens. 


Scr. I1I.—Not to marry with Persons of near Alliance, either 
by Consanguinity or Affinity, to avoid Suspicion of Incest. 
Another rule of the Church, prohibiting certain persons 

from joining together, was, when they were too nearly related 

to each other, either by consanguinity or affinity, which would 
have made the marriage incestuous, by coming within the 
degrees prohibited by God in Scripture. How far the Chris- 
tian morals exceeded the heathen in this particular (notwith- 
standing the false charge of the heathens against them for 
committing incest in their religious assemblies), I have fully 
showed in another place‘; where I have also noted the penal- 
ties, both ecclesiastical and civil, that, according to the disci- 
pline of those times, were put upon all incestuous persons. 

Here I shall only add a little more particular account of such 

degrees as made marriage to be deemed incestuous, and a 

perfect nullity, whenever it was so contracted. The Council 

of Agde gives this account of them: ‘“ Concerning incestuous 


i Book xvi. chap. xi. sect. iii, vol. vi. p. 234. 


288 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


conjunctions,” say they), ‘‘ we allow them no pardon, unless 
the offending parties cure the adultery by separation from each 
other. We reckon incestuous persons unworthy of any name 
of marriage, and dreadful to be mentioned. For they are 
such as these: if any one pollutes his brother’s relict, who 
was almost his own sister, by carnal knowledge: if any one 
takes to wife his own sister: if any one marries his step- 
mother, or father’s wife: if any one joins himself to his cousin- 
german: if a man marries any one nearly allied to him by con- 
sanguinity, or one whom his near kinsman had married before : 
if any one marries the relict or daughter of his uncle by the 
mother’s side, or the daughter of his uncle by his father’s side, 
or his daughter-in-law ; that is, his wife’s daughter by a former 
husband. ΑἸ] which, both heretofore and now, under this con- 
stitution, we doubt not to be incestuous: and we enjoin them 
to abide and pray with the catechumens, till they make lawful 
satisfaction. But we prohibit these things in such manner for 
the present time, as not to dissolve or cancel any thing that 
has been done before : and they who are forbidden such unlaw- 
ful conjunctions, shall have liberty to marry more agreeably to 
the law.” ‘This canon is repeated almost word for word in the 
Council of Epone, only the last clause is read negatively *, 
‘They shall not have liberty to marry again :” which is plainly 
a corruption crept into the text by the negligence of some 


J Cone. Agath. ο. Ixi. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1393.) De incestis conjunctionibus 
nihil prorsus venize reservamus, nisi quum adulterium separatione sanaverint. 
Incestos vero nullo conjugii nomine deputandos, quos etiam designare funestum 
est, hos enim esse censemus. Si quis relictam fratris, que pene prius soror 
exstiterat, carnali conjunctione polluerit: si quis frater germanam uxoris-em 
[duxerit] acceperit : si quis novercam duxerit: si quis consobrinz [suze] se 
sociaverit: si quis relictze vel filiz avunculi misceatur: aut patrui filie, vel 
privignee suze: aut qui ex propria consanguinitate aliquam, aut quam consan- 
guineus habuit, concubitu polluerit, aut duxerit uxorem. Quos omnes et olim, 
atque sub hac constitutione incestos esse non dubitamus, et inter catechumenos 
usque ad legitimam satisfactionem manere, et orare preecipimus. Quod ita 
presenti tempore prohibemus, ut ea que sunt hactenus instituta, non dissolva- 
mus. Sane quibus conjunctio illicita interdicitur, habebunt ineundi melioris 
conjugii libertatem. 

k Cone. Epaun. ec. xxx. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1580.) Non habebunt ineundi 
melioris conjugii libertatem. [Not. In editione Labbei, hee negativa particula 
non abest.—G'rischov. } 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 989 


unskilful transcriber. For, in the second Council of Tours!, 
this very canon of Epone is cited and read in the same manner 
as it is in the Council of Agde: and the Roman correctors 
upon Gratian observe™, that it is so read in the register of 
Gregory, and the Capitulars of Charles the Great. I only 
observe further, that whereas the marriage of cousin-germans 
is reckoned incestuous in these canons, it was not so in the 
ancient laws of the Church, till Theodosius first made it so by 
the advice of St. Ambrose: which inhibition did not last long ; 
for Arcadius revoked it, and Justinian revived the old law, by 
inserting it into his Code. Of all which I have given a more 
ample account in a former Book®. What is necessary to be 
added in this place, is only this further remark, that whatever 
the Church at any time reckoned to be incest, that was always 
esteemed a just impediment of marriage, and accordingly urged 
as a lawful cause, why persons so nearly allied should not come 
together in marriage: or, if they did, it was a just reason to 
inflict the censures of the Church upon them, till they dissolved 
such pretended marriage, by separating from each other. 


Sect. 1V.—Children under Age not to marry without the Con- 
sent of their Parents, or Guardians, or neat Relations. 


Another reason of inhibition in this affair was, when children 
under age went about to marry without the consent of their 
parents, or guardians, or next relations, who, in case the 
parents were dead, had the paternal power and care of them. 
The civil law was extremely severe in this case, not only 
against the raptors themselves, who stole young virgins against 
their parents’ consent; and all that aided and assisted them 
therein, who were either to be banished, or burned alive ; but 


1 Cone. Turon. IT. ¢. xxii. (Labbe, vol, v. p. 863.) 

m Grat. Caus. xxxv. Queest. ii. ¢. viii. de Incestis. ‘habebunt.’] (Pithceus, 
vol. i. p. 432.) Sie in Agathensi et apud Ivonem. In Epaunensi legitur, ‘ non 
habebunt.’? Sed in Turonico, in quo citatur Epaunense, ‘habebunt.’ Sie etiam 
infra, queest. viii. cap. ‘heee salubriter, ex Gregorio. In capitulari autem 
indicato plenius hee sententia exponitur: ‘Sed quibus illicita conjunctio inter- 
dicitur, nisi hi sunt, quos sanctorum patrum decreta conjugio copulari prohibent, 
habebunt ineundi melioris conjugii libertatem.’ 

n Book xvi. chap. xi. sect. iv. vol. vi. 

VOL. VII. U 


290 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


also against the virgins themselves, who conspired in such 
matches against the parents’ will: as I have had occasion to 
show heretofore from several laws of Constantine, Constantius, 
Valentinian, and Gratian, mentioned in both the Codes®. Now 
this being the case of the imperial laws, the Church was ex- 
ceeding cautious not to transgress or incur any blame upon 
this score. ‘Tertullian seems to testify for his own time, when 
he says?, ‘That children could not rightly and lawfully marry 
without the consent of their earthly parents, as well as the 
approbation of their Father in heaven. And that the Church 
allowed no clandestine marriages: for all such, that were not‘ 
publicly beforehand professed or notified before the Church, 
were in danger of being judged fornication and adultery : and 
they could not be excused from guilt, under pretence of being 
real matrimony.” St. Austin, in like manner, asserts the power 
of parents in this case: for speaking of a young virgin, who 
was a minor, under the protection of his Church, to keep her 
safe from all attempts of making her a prey to any raptor, he 
says’, “‘ Her age would not yet permit him to give, or so much 
as promise her, to any one, though by her own consent: be- 
cause she had an aunt, without conferrmg with whom he 
neither could nor ought to do any thing in the matter. Be- 
sides, though her mother did not then appear, yet perhaps, 
hereafter, she might appear; and then nature gave her will 
the preference, before all others, in disposing of her daughter, 
unless she were arrived to that age which gives her a free 
liberty and right to dispose of herself.” St. Basil often speaks 
of such minors stolen and married clandestinely without the 


© Ibid. chap. ix. sect. ii. 

P Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. ii. 6. ix. (Semler, vol. iii. p. 79, at top.) Nee in terris 
filii sine consensu patrum rite et jure nubent. 

4 Ibid. de Pudicit. c. iv. (Paris. 1664. p. 557, B 6.) Penes nos occultze 
quoque conjunctiones, id est, non prius apud ecclesiam professee, juxta moechiam 
et fornicationem judicari periclitantur. Nec inde consertze obtentu matrimonii 
erimen eludant. 

τ Aug. Ep. ccxxxiii. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 668.) In ea zetate est, ut si 
voluntatem nubendi haberet, nulli adhue dari vel promitti deberet. . . . Habet 
materteram: fortassis, quee nunc non apparet, apparebit et mater, cujus volun- 
tatem in tradenda filia omnibus, ut arbitror, natura preeponit: nisi eadem 
puellee in ea jam zetate fuerit, vel jure licentiore sibi eligat ipsa, quod velit. 


Cap. IL. 8 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 29] 


parents’ consent: “ But,” he says’, ‘such pretended marriages 
were not matrimony, but fornication; and of no validity, but 
null, unless the parents thought fit to ratify them afterwards 
by their consent: meanwhile the transgressors were to do, for 
four years, the penance of harlots and fornicators, in the 
Church.” And there was the more reason both for this 
caution antecedent, and subsequent severity, because not only 
the civil law, under Christian emperors, but the old Roman 
law, under heathens, was very precise and strict in this matter, 
of the necessity of consent of parents to a lawful marriage ; 
without which it was reckoned illegitimate, and the children 
spurious. Justinian has inserted some of the laws of the 
heathen emperors‘, Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, relating 
to this matter, into his Code. And it otherwise appears from 
Apuleius, who, alluding to several particulars which render a 
marriage null, as being against law, thus brings in Venus 
insulting Psyche for pretending to be married to her son 
Cupid": ‘A marriage with so great disparity, huddled up 
privately in a village without witnesses, the father not con- 
senting, cannot be thought a lawful marriage: and therefore 
thy son will be spurious,” or a bastard. What, therefore, was 
thought so necessary to legitimate a marriage among the 
heathens, was certainly much more so among the Christians. 
And there is no example that I know of, to be found of the 
Church’s allowing or approving any marriage to be lawful, 
where the consent of the parents, disposing of their children 
when under age, was not had first or last to the ratification 
of it. 


“ 


5. Basil. ¢. xxii. (Bened. 1721. vol. iii. p. 293.) See book xvi. chap. ix. 
sect. ii. vol. vi. p. 197.—Can. xxxviii. Αἱ κόραι, at παρὰ γνώμην πατρὸς 
ἀκολουθήσασαι, πορνεύουσι. Can. xlii. Ot ἄνευ τῶν κρατούντων γάμοι, 
πορνεῖαί εἰσιν. 

t Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. iv. de Nuptiis, leg. i. ii, (Amstelod. 1663. p. 148.) 

u Apul. de Asino Aureo, (lib. vi. p. 104.) Impares nuptiz, et preeterea in 
villa, sine testibus, et patre non consentiente, factee, legitimze non possunt 
videri : ac per hoe spurius ille nascetur. 


99? THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


Sect. V.—Slaves not to marry without the Consent of their 
Masters. 


The same power and right which parents had over their 
children, masters had over their slaves: and for this reason no 
slave could marry without the consent of his master; or, if 
any did, it was in the master’s power whether he would ratify 
or rescind the marriage. “ If slaves,” says St. Basil’, ‘‘ marry 
without the consent of their masters, or children without the 
consent of their parents, it.is not matrimony, but fornication, 
till they ratify it by their consent.” And again”, “ If a slave 
marry without the consent of her master, she differs nothing 
from a harlot: for contracts made without the consent of 
those under whose power they are, have no validity, but are 
null.” 


Sect. VI.—Persons of superior Rank not to marry Slaves. 


Another thing required to a lawful marriage was, that there 
should be some parity of condition between the contracting 
parties. Persons of a superior rank might not debase them- 
selves to marry slaves. The civil law requires that they 
should be ‘ pares genere et moribus*,’ ‘ of equal rank and con- 
dition... By which the law did not mean that they should be 
equal in fortune, but that there should be no such disparity in 
their condition as between a freeman and a slave; nor any 
such disparity in their morals as between an actress and a 
senator, or any one of a liberal and ingenuous education: as 
the matter is accurately explained in one of the laws of Valen- 
tinian and Marcian upon this head’. ‘* We do not intend her 


Vv Basil. ο. xlii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1744.) (Bened. 1721. vol. iii. p. 296, B.) 
Oi ἄνευ τῶν κρατούντων γάμοι, πορνεῖαί εἰσιν" οὔτε οὖν πατέρος ζῶντος, 
οὔτε δεσπότου, οἱ συνιόντες ἀνεύθυνοί εἰσιν, ἕως ἂν ἐπινεύσωσιν οἱ κύριοι 
τὴν συνοίκησιν" τότε γὰρ λαμβάνει τὸ τοῦ γάμου βέβαιον. 

w Ibid. ο. xl. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1741.) (Bened. 1721. vol. iii. p. 295, E 3.) 
Ἢ παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ δεσπότου ἀνδρὶ ἑαυτὴν éxdovoa, ἐπόρνευσεν" . . . at 
γὰρ συνθῆκαι τῶν ὑπεξουσιῶν, οὐδὲν ἔχουσι βέβαιον. 

x Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 276.) 
Placet admodum . . . habendo examini auctoritatem quoque judiciarize cogni- 
tionis adjungi, ut si pares sunt genere ac moribus petitores, is potior eestimetur, 
quem sibi consulens mulier adprobarit. 

Υ Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. v. de Incestis et Inutilibus Nuptiis, leg. vii. 


Cuap. II. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 993 


to be judged of a low and abject condition, who, though she be 
poor, yet is born of liberal and ingenuous parents: and there- 
fore we declare it lawful for senators, or any others of the 
highest dignity, to marry women that are born of ingenuous 
parents, although they be poor; and that there shall be no 
distinction in this case between ingenuous women and those 
that are rich, by a great and opulent fortune. But we account 
these women only vile and abject persons, viz. a slave, or the 
daughter of a slave; a freed-woman, or the daughter of a 
freed-woman ; an actress, or the daughter of an actress ; an 
innkeeper, or the daughter of an innkeeper, or of a pander, or 
of a gladiator” (that is, one that was used to fight with men 
or wild beasts upon the stage) ; ‘“‘or any who was wont to sell 
small wares publicly in the market. With such women as 
these it is just to forbid senators to join in marriage.” Con- 
stantine? had made a law before to forbid all senators, and 
governors of provinces, and city magistrates, and high-priests 
of provinces, to marry slaves, or freed-women, or actresses, 
&c., under pain of infamy and outlawry, and of having their 
children illegitimate, and incapable of succeeding to any part 
of their father’s substance or possessions. And the better to 
secure women of noble extract from the base attempts of vile 
and abject men, and those of infamous character, the law pro- 
vided, with great caution, that no one of an inferior condition 


(Amstelod. 1663. p. 151.) Humilem vel abjectam feminam minime eam judica- 
mus intelligi, quee licet pauper, ab ingenuis tamen parentibus nata sit. Unde 
licere statuimus senatoribus, et quibuscumque amplissimis dignitatibus przeditis, 
ex ingenuis parentibus natas, quamvis pauperes, in matrimonium sibi accipere, 
nullamque inter ingenuas et opulentiores ex divitiis et opulentiore fortuna esse 
distantiam. Humiles vero abjectasque personas eas tantummodo mulieres esse 
censemus ; ancillam, ancillee filiam ; libertam, libertee filiam ; [scenicam, scenicze 
filiam; tabernariam, tabernarii, vel] lenonis aut arenarii filiam; aut eam que 
mercimoniis publice przefuit. Ideoque hujusmodi inhibuisse nuptias senatoribus 
harum feminarum, quas modo enarravimus, zequum est. 

2 Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. xxvii. de Naturalibus Liberis, leg. i. (Amstelod. 
1663. p. 165.) Senatores seu przefectos, vel quos in civitatibus duumvirilitas, vel 
sacerdotii, id est, Phoeniciarchiz vel Syriarchize ornamenta condecorant ; placet 
maculam subire infamize, et alienos a Romanis legibus fieri; si ex ancilla, vel 
ancillze filia; vel liberta, vel libertee filia; vel scenica, vel scenicze filia; vel 
humili vel abjecta [persona |, vel lenonis, aut arenarii filia, vel quee mercimoniis 
publice przefuit, susceptos filios in numero legitimorum habere voluerint, ete. 


994. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


should solicit a woman of any noble family, or try to gain her, 
by corrupting those that were about her, by any clandestine 
arts; but that her relations? should be consulted, and all 
things be transacted publicly, in the presence of the nobles, 
who were not to be supposed inclinable to give way to any 
such fraud, in bringing about any such unequal contract. 
Nay, the ‘curiales,’ or ‘common-councilmen’ of any city, were 
expressly forbidden, by a law of Constantine, to marry a 
woman that was a slave, under pain of the woman’s being 
condemned” to the mines, and the man himself to perpetual 
banishment, with confiscation of all his movable goods and 
city-slaves to the public, and all his lands and country-slaves 
to the city of which he was a member. And there is no 
doubt, but that what was so severely punished in the civil 
state, was as duly regarded in the ecclesiastical, that they 
might not be accessory or aiding to any such illegal practices, 
which would have reflected great dishonour and scandal on the 
Church ; though I remember no ecclesiastical canons expressly 
made against them. 


Secr. VII.—Judges of Provinces not to marry any Provincial 
Woman during the Year of their Administration. 


There were also some reasons of state, why a judge of a 
province should not marry any woman of that province during 
the year of his administration ; not because it was below his 
dignity, but because he might reasonably be supposed, by 
virtue of his power and superior influence over all about him, 
to overawe and terrify a woman into a compliance of marriage 
against her real inclinations, and not leave her parents or 
guardians at free liberty to dispose of her, at their own dis- 
cretion. To prevent which inconvenience and oppression 
Theodosius made a law*, that if any judge of a province, who 


a Ibid. Nuptias nobiles nemo redimat, nemo sollicitet, sed publice consulatur 
adfinitas, adhibeatur frequentia procerum. 

Ὁ Cod. Theod. lib. xii. tit. i. de Decurionibus, leg. vi. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iv. 
p- 350.) Si decurio fuerit alienze servee conjunctus, et mulierem in metallum 
trudi sententia judicis jubemus, et ipsum decurionem in insulam deportari, ete. 
Apul. lib. vi. Impares nuptize non sunt legitimee. 
€ Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vi. leg. 1. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 273.) Si quis in 





Cuap. 11. § 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 295 


might be a terror to parents, or tutors and guardians, or to 
women that might contract marriage, should betroth a woman 
during the time of his administration ; if afterward either the 
parent or the woman herself should change their mind, they 
should be free from the snare and punishment of the law, 
which appoints in that case a quadruple restitution to be made 
for breach of contract.—And this order extends not only to 
the judge himself, but to his children, grand-children, kinsmen, 
counsellors, and all his domestics, who might be supposed to 
terrify women into marriage-contracts by virtue of the judge’s 
power. Yet if any woman that was so betrothed, was minded 
to fulfil the contract, and make good her espousals after his 
administration was ended, she might lawfully do it.—By which 
it is plain, that this was only a restraint laid upon certain per- 
sons for a season, viz. upon provincial judges, not to marry 
any woman of their own province during the year of their 
administration. They were not debarred from marrying any 
others, but only those of their own province, fer the prudent 
reasons which the law assigns. 


Sect. VIIL.—Widows not to marry again till Twelve Months 
after their Husbands’ Death. 


The case was much the same with widows: they were not 
restrained from marrying a second time, but yet they were 


potestate publica positus, atque honore provinciarum administrandarum, qui 
parentibus, aut tutoribus, aut curatoribus, aut ipsis que matrimonium contrac- 
turze sunt, potest esse terribilis, sponsalia dederit ; jubemus, ut deinceps sive 
parentes, sive exedem mutaverint voluntatem, non modo juris laqueis liberentur, 
poenzeque expertes sint, quee quadruplum statuit, sed extrinsecus data pignora 
lucrativa habeant, si ea non putent esse reddenda. Quod ita late patere volu- 
mus, ut non solum circa administrantes, sed et cirea administrantium filios, 
nepotes, propinquos, participes domesticosque censeamus, quibus tamen ad- 
ministrator operam dederit. Impleri autem id postea matrimonium non veta- 
mus, quod tempore potestatis ob eas personas, de quibus loquuti sumus, arris 
fuerit obligatum, si sponsorum consensus accedat. Tbid. tit. xi. leg. i. (Lugd. 
vol. i. p. 292.) Si quis ordinaria vel qualibet preeditus potestate, circa nuptias 
invitis ipsis vel parentibus contrahendas (sive pupille, sive apud patres virgines, 
sive viduse crunt, sive et sui juris vidue, denique cujuscumque sortis) oceasione 





potestatis utatur, et minacem favorem suum invitis iis, quorum utilitas agitur, 
exhibere aut exhibuisse detegitur, hune et multze librarum auri decem obnoxium 
statuimus, et quum honore abierit, peractam dignitatem usurpare prohibemus. 


296 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


tied up and limited by law not to do this, till a year after the 
death of their former husband. This was the law of the old 
Romans, even from the time of their first founder, Romulus. 
But the Roman year being then but ten months, the time of a 
widow’s mourning was no longer at first: nor was it enlarged 
for many ages after, though the year itself was quickly enlarged 
by Numa to twelve months; yet still the widow’s year was 
only according to the old computation. So that whenever we 
read of a widow’s mourning a year after her husband’s death, 
it is to be understood of the Romulean year of ten months 
only. And so the matter stood till the time of Theodosius, 
who added two months to the former term by an express law, 
which runs in these words¢: ‘“ If any woman, after the loss of 
her husband, make haste to be married to another within the 
space of a year (for we have added a little time to the ten 
months, though we think it but a small term), let her be 
branded with the marks of infamy, and deprived of the honour 
and privilege of a genteel and noble person; and let her forfeit 
whatever goods she is possessed of, either by the right of 
espousals, or by the last will and testament of her deceased 
husband.” 


Secr. LX.— Women not to marry in the Absence of their 
Husbands, till they were certified of their Death. 


If any woman’s husband went abroad, and continued absent 
from her, there was no time limited for her marrying again, 
but she must wait till she was certified of his death: otherwise 
she was reputed guilty of adultery. So St. Basile: ‘She 
whose husband is absent from home, if she cohabit with an- 
other man before she is satisfied of his death, commits adul- 


4 Cod. Theod. lib, iii. tit. viii. de Secundis Nuptiis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. 
p- 281.) Si qua ex feminis, perdito marito, intra anni spatium alteri festinarit 
innubere (parum enim temporis post decem menses servandum adjicimus, 
tametsi id ipsum exiguum putemus) probrosis inusta notis honestioris nobilis- 
que personze et decore et jure privetur; atque omnia, que de prioris mariti 
bonis, vel jure sponsaliorum, vel judicio defuncti conjugis consequuta fuerat, 
amittat. 

€ Basil. ὁ. xxxi. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1740.) (Bened. 1721. vol. iii. p. 295.) Ἡ 
ἀναχωρήσαντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, Kai ἀφανοῦς ὄντος, πρὸ τοῦ πεισθῆναι περὶ τοῦ 
θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἑτέρῳ συνοικήσασα, μοιχᾶται. 


Cuap. 11, § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 997 


” 
. 


tery.” This was the case of a soldier’s wife (marrying after 
the long absence of her husband, yet before she was certified 
of his death), as he determines‘ in another canon: but he 
reckons her more pardonable than another woman, because it 
was more probable that he might be dead. In these cases, if 
the first husband appeared again, he might claim his wife, and 
the second marriage was null and of no effect: as is deter- 
mined in the Council of Trullo%, where these canons of St. 
Basil are repeated. But the civil law allowed a soldier’s wife 
to marry" after four years’ expectation. 


Secr. X.—Guardians not to marry Orphans in their Minority, 
till their Guardianship was ended. 


By the old Roman law a guardian might not marry a woman 
to whom he was guardian: neither might he give her in mar- 
riage to his own son. ‘There are several laws. of Severus, 
Philip, and Valerian‘, in the Justinian Code, to this purpose. 


f Ibid. ὁ. xxxvi. (ibid. p. 1741.) (Bened. p. 295.) Στρατιώτιδες, αἱ τῶν 
ἀνδρῶν ἀφανῶν ὄντων γαμηθεῖσαι, τῷ αὐτῷ ὑπόκεινται λόγῳ, ᾧπερ ἂν Kai 
αἱ διὰ τὴν ἀποδημίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν μὴ ἀναμείνασαι τὴν ἐπάνοδον" πλὴν 
ἔχει τινὰ συγγνώμην τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐνταῦθα, διὰ τὸ μᾶλλον πρὸς θάνατον 
εἶναι τὴν ὑπόνοιαν. 

Β Cone. Trul. ec. xciii. (ibid. vol. vi. p. 1182.) Ἢ ἀναχωρήσαντος, κ. τ. Δ. 

ον εἰ δέ γε ὁ στρατιώτης ἐπανέλθοι χρόνῳ ποτὲ, οὗ ἡ γυνὴ διὰ τὴν ἐπι- 
πολὺ ἐκείνου ἀπόλειψιν ἑτέρῳ συνήφθη ἀνδρὶ, οὗτος εἰ προαιρεῖται, τὴν 
οἰκείαν αὖθις ἀναλαμβανέτω γυναῖκα, συγγνώμης αὐτῇ ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ δεδο- 
μένης, καὶ τῷ ταύτην εἰσοικισαμένῳ κατὰ δεύτερον γάμον ἀνδρί. 

h Cod, Justin. lib. v. tit. xvii. 1. vii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 162.) Uxor, quee in 
militiam profecto marito, post interventum annorum quatuor, nullum sospitatis 
ejus potuit habere indicium, atque ideo de nuptiis aliis cogitavit, nec tamen ante 
nupsit, quam libello Ducem super [hoe suo] voto convenit ; non videtur nuptias 
iniisse furtivas, nec dotis amissionem sustinere, nec capitali poenze esse obnoxia, 
quee post tam magni temporis jugitatem non temere, nee clanculo, sed publice 
contestatione deposita nupsisse firmatur. 

i Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. vi. (p. 151.) de Interdicto Matrimonio inter Pupillam 
et Tutorem seu Curatorem Filiosque eorum, leg. i, Senatus consulti auctori- 
tatem, quo inter pupillam et tutoris filium connubium saluberrime sublatum est, 
cireumveniri rusticitatis et imperitiee velamentis non oportet.—Leg. iv. Liberti- 
num, qui filio suo naturali, quem in servitute susceperat, postea mantumisso 
pupillam suam, eandemque patroni sui filiam in matrimonio collocavit ; ad sen- 
tentiam amplissimi ordinis, qui hujusmodi nuptiis interdicendum putavit, perti- 
nere dubitari non oportet.—Leg. vi. Si patris tui pupillam nondum reddita 
tutelze ratione, vel post redditam nondum exacto quinto et vicesimo anno, nec 


298 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


The only exception then was, when the guardian did it by the 
prince’s license and particular rescript. But Constantine de- 
termined this matter with another distinction: which was, 
“That the guardian should not marry the orphan, whilst she 
was a minor and under his care; but when she was of age, he 
might marry her, first proving that he had not defiled her in 
her minority. But if he had offered any injury to her before, 
he was not only debarred from marrying her, but was also to 
be banished, and all his goods to be confiscated to the public.” 


Sect. XI.—When first the Prohibition of Spiritual Relations 
marrying one with another, came im. 


By some rules, though not of the first and prime antiquity, 
certain degrees of spiritual relations were prohibited from 
making marriages one with another. The thing was first 
thought of by Justinian, who made a law!, forbidding any man 
to marry a woman for whom he had been godfather in bap- 
tism ; because nothing induces a more paternal affection, or 
juster prohibition of marriage, than this tie, by which their 
souls are, in a divine manner, united together. The Council 
of Trullo improves this matter a little further™, and forbids 


non utili anno, uxorem duxisti: nec matrimonium cum ea habuisse, nec filium 
ex hujusmodi conjunctione procreasse videri potes.—Leg. vii, Si tutor vel 
curator pupillam, vel adultam quandam suam sibi, vel filio suo, nullo divino 
impetrato beneficio, in matrimonio collocaverit; manet infamia contra eum, 
veluti confessum de tutela: quia hujusmodi conjunctione fraudem administra- 
tionis tegere laboravit: et duos data per condictionem repeti potest. 

k Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. viii. leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iii. p. 69.) Ubi puella 
ad annos adult eetatis accesserit, et adspirare ad nuptias ccoeperit, tutores 
necesse habeant comprobare, quod puelle sit intemerata virginitas, cujus con- 
junctio postulatur. Quod ne latius porrigatur, hic solus debet tutorem nexus 
adstringere, ut se ipsum probet ab injuria lesi pudoris immunem: quod ubi 
eonstiterit, omni metu liber optata conjunctione frui debebit: officio servaturo, 
ut si violate castitatis apud ipsum facinus heereat, deportatione plectatur, atque 
universe ejus facultates fisci viribus vindicentur: quamvis eam pcenam 
debuerit sustinere, quam raptori leges imponunt. 

1 Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. iv. de Nuptiis, leg. xxvi. p. 150. Ea persona omni- 
modo ad nuptias venire prohibenda, quam aliquis sive alumna sit sive non, a 
sacro sancto suscepit baptismate: quum nihil aliud sie inducere potest paternam 
adfectionem et justam nuptiarum prohibitionem, quam hujusmodi nexus, per 
quem Deo mediante animeze eorum copulatze sunt. 

m Cone. Trul. ec. liii. (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1167.) ᾿Επειδὴ μείζων ἡ κατὰ 

5 


Cuap. IT. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 299 


the godfather not only to marry the infant, but the mother of 
the infant for whom he was surety; ordering such as have 
done so, first to be separated, and then to do the penance of 
fornicators. The canon law afterward extended this relation 
to the baptizer and the baptized, and to the catechist and 
catechumen®, and I know not what other degrees of spiritual 
kindred: and the popes, with the same reason, might have 
used their authority to have prohibited all Christians from 
marrying one with another: because by baptism, and many 
other ties, they are more undoubtedly spiritual brethren. But 
Estius® owns this is too absurd to be maintained, because it 
would oblige all Christians either to abstain from marriage, or 
else to marry infidels: and yet he gravely defends all the 
other extravagant prohibitions upon the infallible authority of 
the Church. 


Srecr. XII.— Whether a Man might marry after a lawful 
Divorce ? 


But to return to the ancient Church. Many of the primi- 
tive writers were of opinion, that the bond of matrimony was 
not dissolvable by any thing but death: and therefore they not 
only condemned polygamy, or marrying a second wife while the 
first was living ; and marrying after an unlawful divorce, which 
was much the same thing with polygamy in real estimation ; 
but they reckoned it unlawful also to marry after a lawful 


πνεῦμα οἰκειότης τῆς τῶν σωμάτων συναφείας" ἔγνωμεν δὲ ἔν τισι τόποις 
τινὰς ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ σωτηριώδους βαπτίσματος παῖδας ἀναδεχομένους; 
καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο ταῖς ἐκείνων μητράσι χηρευούσαις γαμικὸν συναλλάσσοντας 
συνοικέσιον" ὁρίζομεν, ἀπὸ τοῦ παρόντος μηδὲν τοιοῦτον πραχθῆναι" εἰ δέ 
τινες μετὰ τὸν παρόντα κανόνα φωραθεῖεν τοῦτο ποιοῦντες, πρωτοτύπως 
μὲν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἀφιστάσθωσαν τοῦ παρανόμου τούτου συνοικεσίου" ἔπειτα δὲ 
καὶ τοῖς τῶν πορνευόντων ἐπιτιμίοις ὑποβληθήτωσαν. 

n Sext. Deeretal. lib. iv. tit. ii. de Cognatione Spirituali, ¢. ii. (Corp. Jur. 
Can. 1779. vol. ii. p. 329.) Per catechismum, qui preecedit baptismum, sacra- 
mentorum fundamentum, et januam reliquorum, cognatio spiritalis contrahitur : 
per quem contrahendum matrimonium impeditur. 

o Estius in Sentent. lib. iv. Distinct. xlii. n. i. (Paris. 1638. vol. p. 232, A.) 
Multo minus ea spiritualis fraternitas, que est inter omnes Christianos, debuit 
impedimentum matrimonii constitui; tum quia ratio supradicta non habet in ea 
locum ; tum quia per ejusdem legem Christiani non possent matrimonia contra- 
here, nisi cum infidelibus, quod foret absurdissimum. 


300 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


divorce, because, though there might be reason for a separa- 
tion, yet they thought there was no dissolution of the marriage 
so long as both parties were living. I shall say nothing fur- 
ther here of the unlawfulness of polygamy, or of marrying 
again after an unlawful divorce ; because I have had occasion 
heretofore? to speak fully of the laws and discipline of the 
Church against both these: but the prohibition of marrying 
again, after a lawful divorce, is what deserves a little further 
consideration. 

And here I observe, that the ancients were divided in their 
sentiments upon the point. Origen was against marrying after 
such a divorce; yet, he says4, “There were some bishops in 
his time, who permitted a woman to marry, whilst her former 
husband was living. Which was, indeed, against Scripture, 
which says, ‘The woman is bound so long as her husband 
liveth : and ‘She shall be called an adulteress, if, whilst her 
husband liveth, she be married to another man.’ Yet they 
did not permit this altogether without reason: for perhaps, 
for the infirmity of such as could not contain, they tolerated 
that which was evil, to avoid that which is worse, though con- 
trary to that which was written from the beginning.” Here 
it is reasonable to suppose, that those bishops who allowed 
men and women to marry after divorce, did not think it simply 
evil, though it was so in Origen’s opinion. And the same is 
to be said of Constantine, who made a law't, that a man for 
three crimes, adultery, sorcery, and pandery, might lawfully 


P Book xvi. chap. xi. sect. v. and vi. vol. vi. 

4 Origen. in Matth. (Bened. Paris. 1733. vol. iii. p. 647, in the “ Vetus Inter- 
pretatio.” Scio quosdam, qui przesunt ecclesiis, extra scripturam permisisse 
aliquam nubere, viro priori vivente: et contra Scripturam quidem fecerunt, 
dicentem, ‘ Mulier ligata est, quanto tempore vivit vir ejus.’ Item, ‘ Vivente 
viro, adultera vocabitur, si facta fuerit alteri viro.2 Non tamen omnino sine 
causa hoc permiserunt: forsitan enim propter hujusmodi infirmitatem inconti- 
nentium hominum, pejorum comparatione, que mala sunt permiserunt, adver- 
sus ea, quee ab initio fuerant scripta, Matth. xix. 9. 

* Cod. Theod. lib. 111, tit. xvi. de Repudiis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 310.) 
In masculis etiam, si repudium mittant, hee tria crimina inquiri conveniet, 
si moecham, vel medicamentariam, vel conciliatricem repudiare voluerit: nam 
si ab his criminibus liberam ejecerit, omuem dotem restiiuere debet, et aliam 
non ducere. 


Cuap. 11. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 301 


put away his wife and marry another. For, as Gothofred* 
rightly observes, in saying, that unless she was guilty of one of 
those three crimes, he might not marry another, it is plainly 
implied, that if he proved her guilty of any of the three, he 
had liberty to put her away, and marry another. The author 
under the name of St. Ambrose was of the same opinion ; for 
expounding those words of the apostle, “ἃ brother or a sister 
in such a case is not under bondage,” he says*, “ If Esdras 
cast out the infidels, and allowed the faithful to marry other 
wives; how much rather, if an infidel departs of his own 
accord, shall the believing woman have liberty, if she pleases, 
to be married to a man of her own religion?” And he gives 
this reason for it : “‘ Because an indignity offered to the Creator 
dissolves the obligation of matrimony with respect to him who 
is deserted, so that he is excused though he be joined to an- 
other: forasmuch as an infidel is injurious both to God and to 
matrimony itself by desertion.” Epiphanius speaks not only 
his own sense, but the sense of the Church in his time. And 
he says plainly", “That though the clergy were prohibited 
from marrying a second wife after the death of the first, yet 
the people were not only allowed to marry again in such a 
case, but also in case of divorce, if a separation was made upon 
the account of fornication or adultery, or any such criminal 


5. Gothofred. in loc. p. 313. Ex hac interim lege ibi; οἱ aliam non ducere, a 
contrario discimus, juste repudiata uxore a marito, veluti ob adulterium, alteram 
ei uxorem ducere licuisse. 

t Ambros. in 1 Cor. vii. 15. (Bened. Paris. 1686. vol. ii. append. p. 134, Ὁ 3.) 
Non est servituti subjectus frater aut soror, in hujusmodi. Nam si Esdras 
dimitti fecit uxores aut viros infideles, ut propitius fieret Deus, nec iratus esset, 
si alias ex genere suo acciperent ; non enim ita preeceptum his est, ut remissis 
istis alias minime ducerent; quanto magis si infidelis discesserit, liberum 
habebit arbitrium, si voluerit nubere legis suze viro? (Ὁ 10.) Contumelia enim 
Creatoris solvit jus matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur, ne accusetur alii 
copulatus ; infidelis autem discedens, et in Deum, et in matrimonium peccare 
dignoscitur. 

u Epiphan. Heeres. lix. n. iv. (Paris. 1662. vol. 1. p. 497, A 4) Ὁ μὴ 
δυνηθεὶς τῇ μιᾷ ἀρκεσθῆναι τελευτησάσῃ, ἕνεκέν τινος προφάσεως, πορνείας, 
ἢ μοιχείας, ἢ κακῆς αἰτίας χωρισμοῦ γενομένου, συναφθέντα δευτέρᾳ 
γυναικὶ, ἢ γυνὴ δευτέρῳ ἀνδρὶ, οὐκ αἰτιᾶται ὁ θεῖος λόγος, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῆς ζωῆς ἀποκηρύττει, ἀλλὰ διαβαστάζει διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς; 
οὐχ ἵνα δύο γυναῖκας ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σχῇ; ἔτι περιούσης τῆς μιᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ 
μιᾶς ἀποσχεθεὶς, δευτέρα, εἰ τύχοιεν, νόμῳ συναφθῆναι. 


302 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


evil, and a man thereupon was joined to a second wife, or a 
woman to a second husband, the word of God did not condemn 
them, nor exclude them from the Church, nor eternal life, but 
tolerate them because of their infirmity : not that a man should 
have two wives at the same time, but that being divorced or 
separated from the first, he might lawfully be joined to a 
second.” Petavius freely owns’, that this is a full proof, in 
fact, of the Church’s sentiments at that time: only, he says, 
the matter was not then fully determined nor settled by any 
general council; which is not very material to the present in- 
quiry, which is not about the determinations of the Councils 
of Florence or Trent, but about the sense and practice of the 
ancient Church. Now what Epiphanius observes, concerning 
the toleration of such marriages in the Church without any 
check of ecclesiastical censure, is further confirmed, even from 
the Council of Arles and St. Austin, though they were of a 
different opinion from Epiphanius as to the sense of Scripture. 
They thought men were forbidden to marry again, after 
divorce, whilst the first wife was living: but they did not 
think this so clearly revealed as to make it a high crime, and 
just matter of excommunication, like other plain cases ef adul- 
tery. The Council orders, that such men shall be dealt with 
and advised, as much as might be, not to marry a second wife 
while the former, that was divorced for adultery, was living *: 
but they say not a word of any ecclesiastical censure to be 


Vv Petav. in loc. p. 255. Ita quidem Epiphanius. Sed ut illis temporibus 
nondum ea res ab ecclesia definita prorsus fuerit, hodie tamen, preesertimque 
post editum a sacrosancta Tridentina synodo canonem, aliter sentire nefas, quam 
superstite priore conjuge, etiam post legitimum divortium, alteris copulari 
nuptiis numquam licere. 

x Cone. Arelat. I. 6. x. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1428.) De his, qui conjuges suas 
in adulterio deprehendunt, et iidem sunt adolescentes fideles, et prohibentur 
nubere; placuit, ut, in quantum possit, consilium eis detur, ne viventibus uxori- 
bus suis, licet adulteris, alias accipiant.—Note that Petavius reads this canon 
differently from all the printed editions. For whereas they read the beginning 
of it thus, ‘De his qui conjuges suas in adulterio deprehendunt, et iidem sunt 
adolescentes fideles, et prohibentur nubere ;’ he contends that it ought certainly 
to be read, ‘non prohibentur nubere? And then, as he says, it is another evident 
proof, that innocent persons, after a lawful divorce, were not prohibited to 
marry in those days. Petay. Animadvers. in Epiphan. Heer. lix. p. 255. See 
also St. Basil, ὁ. ix. to the same purpose. (See notes in preceding page.) 


Cuar. 11. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 303 


passed upon them if they did otherwise. And St. Austin 
confesses’, there was a very great difference to be made 
between such as put away their wives for adultery, and mar- 
ried again, and such as did so upon other reasons: for this 
question, Whether he who, without doubt, has liberty to put 
away his wife for adultery, be to be reckoned an adulterer if he 
marries again, is a matter so obscurely resolved in Scripture, 
that a man may be supposed to err venially about it. And 
therefore he concludes, “ That all the ministry has to do in 
this case is, only to persuade men not to engage in such mar- 
riages: but if they will marry, notwithstanding the contrary 
advice that is given them, he will not venture to say that such 
men ought therefore to be kept out of the Church.” St. Austin 
was fully persuaded in his own mind that such marriages, after 
divorce, were unlawful: for he often repeats it in his works’, 
and uses what arguments he could to dissuade men from them; 
not serupling to declare his opinion of them, as suspicious and 
doubtful marriages, that might stand charged with adultery. 
But, then, he nowhere intimates, that the Church either did 
or ought to treat persons so marrying as she did other adul- 
terers (whose adultery was more indisputable), either by dis- 
solving the marriage, or bringing the persons under excommu- 
nication and public penance in the church: but rather declares 
the error of such persons to be venial, because it was not so 
expressly condemned in Scripture. And thus much Estius 


y Aug. de Fide et Oper. ὁ. xix. (Bened. 1700. vol. vi. p. 136, E 13.) Quis- 
quis uxorem adulterio deprehensam dimiserit et aliam duxerit, non videtur 
sequandus eis, qui excepta causa adulterii dimittunt et ducunt: et in ipsis 
Divinis sententiis ita obscurum est, utrum et iste cui quidem sine dubio adul- 
teram licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur, si alteram duxerit, ut, quantum 
existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur. Quamobrem qui manifesta sunt 
impudicitize crimina, omni modo a baptismo prohibenda sunt, nisi mutatione 
voluntatis et poenitentia corrigantur: quae autem dubia, omni modo conandum 
est, ne fiant tales conjunctiones. Quid enim opus est in tantum discrimen 
ambiguitatis caput mittere? Si autem factee fuerint, nescio, utrum ii qui 
fecerint, similiter ad baptismum non debere videantur admitti. 

z [pid. de Adulterinis Conjugiis, lib. i. e. i. et xxvi. (Bened. vol. vi. p. 296.) 
De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, lib. i. 6. x. (ibid. vol. x. p. 191.) De Bono 
Conjugali, ¢. vii. (ibid. vol. vi. p. 236.) De Sermone Domini in Monte, lib. i. 
ὁ. xiv. (ibid. vol. iii. part. ii. p. 130.) 











904. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


owns ; only he says, ‘‘It was not then condemned by any 
general council.” There is one instance, indeed, given by 
St. Jerome”, of a woman doing public penance in the church 
for marrying a second husband, after she had divorced herself 
from the first upon the account of his adultery, and his other 
intolerable practices. But this was a voluntary act of her 
own, and not done till after death of her second husband : 
the Church did not impose this penance on her whilst her 
husband was living, nor yet when he was dead; but she chose 
it of her own accord, and submitted to it without any compul- 
sion. Had there been any general law then in the Church, 
either to dissolve such marriages, or bring the parties to public 
penance, no doubt the bishop of Rome would have called upon 
them both, whilst the husband was living, to have complied 
with the rule and the discipline of the Church: but this not 
being done, seems to be an argument, that then it was not the 
custom of the Roman Church to inflict any public censures 
upon such as married again after a lawful divorce, but only to 
use what arguments she could to dissuade men and women 
from such marriages, till the former husband or wife were 
dead; or else, if they did engage in them, to exhort them 
to repent of such engagements, as crimes prohibited by the 
apostle. Which St. Jerome himself* does with no small 


a Estius in Sentent. lib. iv. distinct. xxxv. n. xv. (Paris. 1638. p. 160, E 7.) 
Lib. 83. Queest. Q. 83. Sanctus Hieronymus in epitaphio Fabiolee ad Oceanum 
refert, quemadmodum Fabiola, quee dimisso viro non solum adultero, sed 
omnibus flagitiis contaminato, alteri nupserat, post mortem secundi mariti pub- 
licam poenitentiam, ab episcopo Romano impositam, similiter subierit ; ejusque 
factum non aliter excusat, quam quod evangelii rigorem ignoraverit. Hine 
discimus, illo tempore publicum crimen habitum fuisse in ecclesia, si quis, 
vivente conjuge, etiam ob fornicationem dimissa, aliud conjugium iniret, ete. 

b Hieron. Epitaph. Fabiolee, Epist. xxx. ad Oceanum, (Venet. vol. i. p. 459, 
Ὁ 8.) Quis hoe crederet, ut post mortem secundi viri in semetipsam reversa 
saccum indueret, ut errorem publice fateretur ; et tota urbe spectante Romana, 
ante diem Paschz in Basilica quondam Laterani, staret in ordine pceniten- 
tium, ete. 

¢ Hieron. Epist. exlvii. ad Amandum. (Venet. vol. i. p. 298, Ὁ 3.) Ista 
soror, quee, ut dicit, vim passa est, ut alteri jungeretur, si vult corpus Christi 
accipere et non adultera reputari, agat poenitentiam ; ita duntaxat, ut secundo 
viro, qui non appellatur vir, sed adulter, a tempore pcenitentize non copu- 
letur, ete. 


Cuap. 11. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 305 


vehemence, according to his manner, telling a woman who 
had so married a second husband, that “‘ she was an adulteress 
for so doing, and that she ought not to receive the communion 
till she repented of her crime.” By which, I suppose, he 
means her obligations to private repentance, and not any 
solemn penance imposed by the public discipline of the Church. 
Yet in the Spanish Church, before this time, there seems to 
have been something of public discipline exercised against such 
persons, especially women, joining in second marriages whilst 
the first husband was living. For in the Council of Eliberis 4 
there is a canon which orders, “‘ That if a woman, who is a 
believer, put away an adulterous husband who is also a believer, 
and go about to marry another, she shall first be dissuaded 
from it : but if notwithstanding that she does marry, she shall 
not receive the communion till her first husband be dead, un- 
less the necessity of sickness require it to be given her.” But 
as this was but a canon of a private council, so here are seve- 
ral exceptions and abatements in it. First, it only respects 
women, and not men. ‘Then, again, it only relates to women 
that were believers, and not catechumens, who by the next 
eanon are allowed, notwithstanding, to be admitted to baptism; 
as St. Austin also determined. Thirdly, the husband also that 
was deserted must be a believer; for the case is otherwise, if 
he was a heathen. Lastly, she is allowed the communion at 
the pomt of death, though she never relinquished the second 
husband: so that, as yet, the prohibition was not universal, 
upon many accounts. Afterwards, we find in one of the laws 
of Honorius*’, “That if a woman could prove her reason 


4 Cone. Illiber. ¢. ix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 971.) Femina fidelis, quee adulterum 
maritum reliquerit fidelem, et alterum ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat: si duxerit, 
non prius accipiat communionem, nisi, quem reliquerit, prius de szeculo exierit ; 
nisi forte necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit. 

€ Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. xvi. de Repudiis, leg. ii. (Lugdun. 1665. vol. i. 
p- 313.) Si graves causas atque involutam criminibus magnis conscientiam pro- 
baverit, quze recedit, dotis suze compos, sponsalem quoque obtineat largitatem, 
atque a repudii die post quinquennium nubendi recipiat potestatem. Si divor- 
tium prior maritus objecerit, ac mulieri grave crimen intulerit, persequatur 
legibus accusatam, impetrataque vindicta et dote potiatur, et suam recipiat 
largitatem, et ducendi mox alteram liberum sortiatur arbitrium. Si vero 
morum est culpa, non criminum, donationem recipiat, et dotem relinquat, aliam 


VOL. VII. x 


306 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


weighty and sufficient for a divorce, she might not only retain 
her dowry, and the donations of her espousals, but also within 
five years have liberty to marry again. And a man, if he 
could prove his reasons for divorce weighty against his wife, 
might not only retain her dowry and gifts of espousal, but 
have liberty to marry another wife whenever he pleased. Or, 
if they were only light faults, and not high crimes, that he had 
to allege against his wife, he was to leave her her dowry, but 
might reclaim any espousal gifts, and have liberty to marry 
another wife after two years. But if a man put away his wife 
for no reasons at all, but only his own moroseness, he was con- 
demned to live in perpetual celibacy for his insolent divorce, 
and the woman had liberty within a year to be married to 
another man.” And there are several laws of Theodosius 
Junior, and Valentinian ITI., and Anastasius, in the J ustinian 
Code‘, which grant the same liberty of marrying after lawful 
divorces. But these laws are not altogether approved by the 
writers of the Church in those times: for, as we have heard 
St. Austin and St. Jerome express their dislike before, so we 
may find the same in Chrysostom ὅ, and Ambrose", and Pope 
Innocent ‘, and other writers of that age, who reckon the laws 
of the state too loose and favourable to such as married after 


post biennium ducturus uxorem. Quod si matrimonium solo maluerit separare 
dissensu, nullisque vitiis peecatisque gravetur exclusa, et donationem vir perdat 
et dotem, ac perpetuo ccelibatu insolentis divortii poenam de solitudinis moerore 
sustineat, mulieri post anni metas nuptiarum potestate concessa. 

f Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. xvii. de Repudiis, leg. viii. et ix. tot. (Amstel. 1663. 
p- 162.) 

& Chrysostom. Hom. xvii. in Matth. (Field’s edition, Cambridge, 1839. vol. i. 
p. 238.) [Not. de divortiis quidem, sed non de legibus imperialibus circa divor- 
tia, hie loquitur Chrysostomus.—Grischov.] 

h Ambros. de Abraham. lib. i. 6. iv. (Bened. Paris. 1686. vol. i. p. 291.) Vos 
moneo, viri, maxime qui ad gratiam Domini tenditis, non commisceri adulterino 
corpori: (qui enim se jungit meretrici, unum corpus est :) nec dare hane occa- 
sionem divortii mulieribus. Nemo sibi blandiatur de legibus hominum. 

i Innocent. Epist. iii. ad Exuper. e. vi. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1256.) De his etiam 
requisivit Dilectio tua, qui interveniente repudio alii se matrimonio copularunt : 
quos in utraque parte adulteros esse manifestum est. Qui vero vel uxore 
vivente, quamvis dissociatum videatur esse conjugium, ad aliam copulam festi- 
narunt, neque possunt adulteri non videri, in tantum ut hee etiam personze, 
quibus tales conjuncti sunt, etiam ipsee adulterium commisisse videantur ; 
secundum illud, quod legimus in evangelio, ‘ Qui dimiserit uxorem suam,’ ete. 


Cuap. 11. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 807 


divorcee. Which serves only to confirm the observation which 
I made at first, that the ancients were divided upon this point, 
and treated it only as a problematical question ; though the 
Council of Trent has since turned it into an article of faith *, 
and damned all those that come not into her sentiments about 
it. And in her sentence (to note this by the by), she has also 
condemned some of her own popes, and councils of later ages, 
which Gratian has recorded. Pope Zachary! allows a woman, 
whose husband had committed incest with her sister, to put 
him away, and marry to whom she would in the Lord. And 
Gregory III. allows a man to put away his wife for infirmity ™, 
and marry another. The Council of Tribur says", “ Ifa son 
commits incest with his mother-in-law, the father may put her 
away, and marry another, if he pleases.” And the Council of 
Vermerize (which in some copies of Gratian is falsely called 
the Council of Eliberis) says°, “If a woman take counsel, 
with others, to compass the death of her husband, he may 
dismiss her for the attempt, and marry another, if he pleases.” 
So that the new legislators at Trent were as much at variance 


k Cone. Trident. Sess. xxiv. 6. vii. (Labbe, vol. xiv. p. 875.) Si quis dixerit 
ecclesiam errare, quum docuit et docet, juxta evangelicam et apostolicam doc- 
trinam, propter adulterium alterius conjugum matrimonii vinculum non posse 
dissolvi, et utrumque, vel etiam innocentem, qui causam adulterio non dedit, 
non posse, altero conjuge vivente, aliud matrimonium contrahere, moecharique 
eum qui, dimissa adultera, aliam duxerit, et eam que dimisso adultero, alii 
nupserit: anathema sit. 

1 Apud Gratian. caus. xxxii. queest. vii. 6. xxiii, (Corp. Jur. Canon. Pitheeus, 
1779. vol. i. p. 391.) Concubuisti cum sorore uxoris tuze? Si fecisti, neutram 
habeas: et si illa, quee uxor tua fuerit, conscia sceleris non fuit, si se continere 
non vult, nubat in Domino, cui velit. Tu autem et adultera sine spe conjugii 
permaneatis: et quamdiu vixeritis, juxta preeceptum sacerdotis pcoenitentiam 
agite. 

m [bid. caus. xxxil. queest. vil. ¢. xviii. Quod proposuisti, si mulier infirmi- 
tate correpta non valuerit debitum viro reddere, quid faciat jugalis ; bonum 
esset, si sic permaneret, ut abstinentiz vacaret: sed quia hoc magnorum est, 
ille qui se non poterit continere, nubat magis ; etc. 

n Tbid. 6. xxiv. Si quis cum noverca sua dormierit, neuter ad conjugium 
potest pervenire: sed vir ejus potest, si vult, aliam accipere, si se continere non 
potest. 

° Cone. Vermer. ap. Gratian. caus. xxxi. queest.i. 6. vi. Si qua mulier in 
mortem mariti sui cum aliis consiliata sit, si probare potest ille vir eam ream 
esse consilii, potest ipsam uxorem dimittere, et, si voluerit, aliam ducere.—See 
Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1657. 


5:¢ νὴ} 


308 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


with their own canon law, as they were with the ancient fathers 
upon this subject. 


Secr. ΧΙ11Π.--- Whether an Adulterer might marry an Adul- 
teress, whom he had defiled, after the Death of her Husband ? 


Nor are the Roman casuists better agreed with the ancients 
upon another question relating to the impediments of mar- 
riage, viz. Whether an adulterer may marry another man’s 
wife after the death of her husband, having been guilty of 
adultery with her whilst her former husband was living? The 
modern canonists commonly resolve this in the negative. The 
Council of Tribur, in Germany, which was held in the year 
895, under Pope Formosus, proposes a famous case of a man 
who defiled another man’s wife, and swore he would marry her 
after her husband’s death. The Council peremptorily deter- 
mines this to be unlawful’: ‘“‘ We anathematize such a mar- 
riage, and forbid it to all Christians. It is not lawful, there- 
fore, nor agreeable to the Christian religion, that any one 
should use her in matrimony, whom he had before defiled by 
adultery.” Peter Lombard¢ and Gratian' cite other authori- 
ties of Pope Leo, and the Council of Althzeum, to this pur- 
pose; and the modern canonists commonly stand to their 


P Cone. Tribur. ο. xl. (Labbe, vol. ix. p. 461.) Tale connubium anathematiza- 
mus et Christianis omnibus obseramus. Non licet ergo, nec Christianze 
religioni oportet, ut ullus ea utatur in matrimonio, cum qua prius pollutus erat 
adulterio. 

4 Lombard. Sent. lib. iv. dist. xxxv. (Col. Agripp. 1566. p. 412, at bottom.) 
Solet queeri, an valeat duci in conjugium, quze prius est polluta per adulterium. 
De hoe Leo papa ait, ‘ Nullus ducat in matrimonium, quam prius polluit adul- 
terio. Item: ‘Relatum est auribus sanctorum sacerdotum, quemdam alterius 
uxorem stupro violasse; et insuper moeche juramentum dedisse, quod post 
legitimi mariti mortem, si superviveret, duceret eam in uxorem, quod et factum 
est. Tale ergo connubium prohibemus et anathematizamus.’ His aliisque 
auctoribus vetantur in conjugium copulari, qui se prius adulterio maculaverunt. 

τ Gratian. Caus. xxxi. queest. i. (Corp. Jur. Canon. vol. i. p. 378.) Nullus 
ducat in matrimonium, quam prius polluit adulterio. Et Cone, ap. Altheeum: 
Illud communi decreto secundum canonum instituta definimus et preejudicamus, 
ut si quis cum uxore alterius eo vivente fornicatus fuerit, moriente marito, 
synodali judicio aditus ei claudatur illicitus, ne ulterius ei conjugatur matri- 
monio, quam prius polluit adulterio. Nolumus enim, nee Christiane religioni 
convenit, ut ullus ducat in conjugium, quam prius polluit per adulterium. 


Cuap. 11. ὃ 13. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 309 


determination’, only making some nice distinctions, to recon- 
cile these canons to better authorities of the ancients: for the 
ancients, in this matter, were of another opinion. St. Austin‘ 
resolves the question in the affirmative, universally and without 
distinction, ‘ That when a woman’s husband was dead, to 
whom she was truly married, she might become the true and 
lawful wife of another, with whom before she had committed 
adultery.” And again", “It is manifest, that they who at 
first join wickedly together in concubinage, may afterward, by 
changing their wills, make a just and honest marriage toge- 
ther.” And, therefore, the Council of Eliberis determined*, 


5. Estius in Sentent. lib. iv. distinct. xxxv. ἢ. xiii. (Paris. 1638. p. 162, E 6.) 
Quare altera ejusdem Augustini expositio, quam et alii veteres fere sequuntur, 
ceteris preeponenda videtur, ut exceptio illa (‘nisi ob fornicationem’) ad id, 
quod preecedit, tantum referatur, totaque oratio elliptica sit, hoe pacto supplenda 
atque intelligenda, ‘ Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam’ (quod non licet nisi ob 
fornicationem) ‘et aliam duxerit, meechatur.’ Simile est, si dicam, Quicumque 
mulierem cognoverit, nisi in conjugio, et libidini suze obsecutus fuerit, peccat. 
Constat autem ellipticum loquendi genus Hebrzeis admodum fuisse familiare, et 
hujus rei exempla plurima reperiri in sacris litteris, quale illud est, 1 Timoth. iv. 
‘Prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis,’ etce.; subauditur enim vocabulum 
Et p. 430. Apud Gratianum, 
XXXii. queest. vii. exstat canon cujusdam concilii in hzee verba, ‘ Queedam cum 


contrariz significationis, nempe ‘ jubentium.’ 





fratre viri sui dormivit ; decretum est, ut adulteri numquam conjugio copulen- 
tur; illi vero, cujus uxor stuprata est, licita conjugia non negentur.’ Sed 
respondetur, ut canoni detur auctoritas, (qui tamen cujus concilii fuerit ignora- 
tur, quandoquidem nec hodie in ullo exstat concilio,) sensum ejus hunc esse, 
adulteros incestuosos (talis enim est casus in canone propositus) numquam 
posse conjugio copulari, ne quidem post mortem conjugum: at eorum conjuges 
non prohiberi, quo minus adulteris mortuis ad alia conjugia transeant. Qui 
sensus canonis colligitur, tum ex antithesi partium, tum ex simili canone 
Gregorii (qui habetur eadem quest. cap. Hi vero, ete.) quem similiter de 
adultera incestuosa exponunt. In eo enim expresse post mortem conjugis 
adulteri conceditur, quod in vita negatur; et similiter respondendum est ad 
duos alios canones, alterum Zacharize pape, et alterum Concilii Triburiensis, 
quos ibidem Gratianus recitat. Hoc enim dumtaxat concedunt innocenti, quod 
prohibetur nocenti, nempe aliud conjugium post mortem prioris. 

t Aug. de Nupt. et Concupise. lib. i. 6. x. (Bened. 1700. vol. x. p. 191, D 2.) 
Mortuo viro cum quo verum connubium fuit, fieri verum connubium potest, 
cum quo prius adulterium fuit. 

u Aug. de Bono Conjugali, 6. xiv. (Bened. 1700. vol. vi. p. 241, A 8.) Posse 
sane fieri nuptias ex male conjunctis, honesto postea placito consequente, 
manifestum est. 

x Cone. Illiber. ¢. ix. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 971.) Femina fidelis, que adulterum 


310 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


‘“¢ That though a woman, who left her husband and lived adul- 
terously with another, should not communicate so long as her 
husband was living; yet she might after his death, because 
then she became the lawful wife of him with whom before she 
had only lived in adultery.” Albaspiny, in his notes upon this 
canon, makes this candid remark’: ‘“ In those times you may 
observe, that matrimony might stand firm and valid between 
adulterers, who had to do with one another whilst the true 
and lawful husband was living: which now is so prohibited, 
that a woman, even after the death of her husband, cannot 
make a true and lawful marriage with her adulterer, but only 
by the dispensation of the pope.” Which is a plain and inge- 
nuous confession’ of the difference between the ancient and 
modern way of resolving this question; and, perhaps, tacitly 
intimates the true reason of inventing so many new impedi- 
ments in the business of matrimony, that the pope might have 
it in his power to grant frequent dispensations. All that the 
ancient canons required in this particular case was only, that 
the criminals should perform a just and satisfactory penance 
for their former adultery; but they never forbade them to 
marry, nor dissolved the marriage, if it was contracted regu- 
larly after the death of the former husband, without any other 
impediment to hinder or disannul it. As appears from another 
canon of the Council of Eliberis, which orders’, ‘‘ That if a 
widow commit adultery with a man, and afterward take him 
for her husband, she shall do five years’ penance, and then be 
reconciled to the communion [or by the communion]: but if 
she leaves him, and marries any other, she shall not have the 
communion, even at her last hour.” Where it is observable, 


maritum reliquerit fidelem, et alterum ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat; si duxerit, 
non prius accipiat communionem, nisi quem reliquerit, prius de szeculo exierit. 

Y Albaspin. in loc. (p. 991.) Illis temporibus, ut vides, matrimonium poterat 
stare et validum esse inter adulteros, qui vivente vero et legitimo marito rem 
simul habuerant: quod hodie ita prohibitum est, ut ne quidem post mortem 
mariti mulier possit cum adultero nuptias firmas et legitimas facere ; nisi 
summo dispensante pontifice. 

z Cone. Illiber. ¢. 1xxii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 978.) Si qua vidua fuerit moechata, 
et eumdem postea habuerit maritum, post quinquennii tempus, acta legitima 
peenitentia, placuit eam communioni reconciliari; si alium duxerit, relicto illo, 
nec in fine dandam esse communionem. 


Cuap. II. ὃ 14. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 311 


that the council is so far from prohibiting or disannulling the 
marriage of an adulteress with her adulterer, that they oblige 
her to keep him for her husband, and take no other, under 
pain of being refused the communion even at the hour of 
death. Which is abundantly sufficient to show us the sense 
of the ancients upon this point, that they never reckoned it 
needed a dispensation to bring adulterers into a lawful mar- 
riage, though this has been the current practice of the Roman 
court now for many ages. 


Sect. XIV.—The Celebration of Marriage forbidden in Lent. 


I have but one thing more to observe concerning the ancient 
prohibitions of marriage; and that relates to the time or 
season in which it might, or might not, be regularly celebrated. 
The most ancient prohibition that we meet with of this kind, 
is that of the Council of Laodicea; which forbids all mar- 
riages, as well as birthdays, to be celebrated in Lent*. And 
this is the only prohibition, in point of time, that we meet 
with in any of the genuine records of those early ages. Peter 
Lombard” and Gratian® cite a canon out of the Council of 
Lerida (an. 524), which forbids marriages not only in Lent, 
but three weeks before the festival of St. John Baptist, and 
from the beginning of Advent to Epiphany; ordering likewise 
all marriages that are made in these intervals to be annulled. 
But there is no such canon now extant in the tomes of the 
councils; which makes it suspicious, that it is some canon of 
a much later date than the council that is pretended. Martin 
Bracarensis lived some time after the Council of Lerida; and 
in his collection of canons, which he published (an. 572) in 
the Council of Lugo, he takes notice of the prohibition made 


a Cone. Laodic. ὁ. lii. (ibid. vol. i. p. 1506.) “Ore οὐ δεῖ ἐν τεσσαρακοστῇ 
γάμους ἣ γενέθλια ἐπιτελεῖν. 

b Lombard. Sentent. lib. iv. Distinct. xxxii. (Col. Agrip. 1566. p. 407, at top.) 
Nee solum in opere carnali observanda sunt tempora, sed etiam in celebrandis 
nuptiis, secundum illud, ‘ Non oportet a Septuagesima,’ etc. See following note. 

¢ Gratian. Caus. xxxiii. quest. iv. 6. x. (Corp. Jur. Canon. Pithoeus, vol. i. 
p. 427.) Non oportet, a Septuagesima usque in Octavas Pasche, et tribus 
hebdomadibus ante festivitatem Sancti Joannis Baptiste, et ab Adventu 
Domini usque post Epiphaniam, nuptias celebrare. Quod si factum fuerit, 
separentur. 


312 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


at Laodicea, but not of the pretended one at Lerida‘, nor of 
any other. Which is a further argument, that as yet there 
was no prohibition of marrying but only in Lent known in 
Spain, when the bishop of Braga made his collection of canons 
for the use of the Spanish Church. Pope Nicholas I. lived 
about the year 860: and he also takes notice of the prohibition 
of marriage in Lent®, but mentions no other season. Yet Mr. 
Selden says‘, “ The Council of Aquisgranum, or Aix-la-Cha- 
pelle, held, an. 836, under the Emperor Lewis I., forbids mar- 
riages to be celebrated on the Lord’s-day, by a new injunc- 
tion ;” which I do not find in the place by him quoted. How- 
ever the Council of Salegunstade (an. 1322), under Benedict 
VIII. and the Emperor Henry II., made an order’, “That 
no Christians should marry from Advent to the Octaves of 
Epiphany ; nor between Septuagesima Sunday and the Octayes 
of Easter ; nor in fourteen days before the festival of St. John 
Baptist ; nor upon fast-days; nor the vigils of the solemn fes- 
tivals.” And from that time, as Mr. Selden shows at large, 
these were prohibited times of marriage in most churches. 
The learned reader, who would see further into this matter, 
together with the practice of the French and English Churches 
in the following ages, may consult the elaborate discourse of 
that curious writer: for I must return to the ancient Church. 


4 Martin. Bracar. Collect. cap. xlviii. (Labbe, vol. v. p- 911.) Neque nuptias 
liceat in quadragesima celebrare. (See Labbe, vol. i. p. 1506. ο. li. and 111.) 
Non oportet in Quadragesima martyrum natalitia celebrari, sed eorum in 
Sabbato et Dominica tantum memoriam fieri—Non oportet in Quadragesima 
aut nuptias vel queelibet natalitia celebrare. 

© Nicol. Respons. ad Consulta Bulgar. sect. xlviii. (Labbe, vol. viii. p- 534.) 
Unde nec uxorem ducere, nee conyivia facere in Quadragesimali tempore con- 
venire posse nullatenus arbitramur. 

f Selden. Uxor. Hebraic. lib. ii. 6. xxx. (Wilkins, Lond. 1726. vol. ii. p. 698.) 
(p. 224. edit. Francof. 1673.) Dominicis item diebus prohibentur nuptiz in 
Synodo Aquisgranensi (ce. xvii. part. ii.) sub Ludovico primo imperatore, an. 836, 
habita. 

& Cone. Salegunstad. ς. iii. (Labbe, vol. ix. p. 845.) De legitimis conjugiis 
ita visum est, quod nullus Christianus uxorem ducere debeat ab Adventu 
Domini usque in Octavas Epiphanie, et a Septuagesima usque in Octayas 
Paschee, nec in supra notatis xiv. diebus ante festivitatem Sancti Joannis 
Baptistee, neque in preedictis jejuniorum diebus, sive in omnium solennium 
dierum preecedentibus noctibus. 


Cuar. IIT. 81. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 313 


CHAPTER III. 


OF THE MANNER OF MAKING ESPOUSALS PRECEDING 
MARRIAGE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 


Sect. I.—How the Sponsalia, or ‘ Lspousals,’ differed from 
Marriage. 


WHEN persons, against whom there lay no lawful impediment, 
were disposed to join in matrimony with each other, they were 
obliged to go through certain preliminaries, appointed by cus- 
tom or law, before they could ordinarily complete the mar- 
_ Tiage, or regularly come together. These went by the general 
name of ‘sponsalia,’ ‘ espousals’ or ‘betrothing.’ This differed 
from marriage, as an obligation or contract antecedent to a 
future marriage may be supposed to differ from marriage 
actually solemnized and completed. And there were several 
distinct ceremonies proper and peculiar to each. For which 
reason (though they be by some writers confounded) I choose 
to speak separately of them here; as the ancient law, which 
either appointed or confirmed them, always does, giving them 
distinct titles in both the Codes. For there we find one 
title, ‘De Sponsalibus et Donationibus ante Nuptias*, ‘Of 
Espousals and Gifts before Marriage ;’ and another, ‘ De Nup- 
tiis’,’ ‘Of Marriage itself’ To give a summary account of 
the ceremonies observed in each of these, we may observe, 
first, of the espousals, that they consisted chiefly in a mutual 
contract or agreement between the parties concerning their 
future marriage, to be performed within a certain limited time : 
which contract was confirmed by certain gifts or donations, 


4 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 261.)——Cod. Justin. 
lib. ν. tit. i. et 111. 

Ὁ Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii, (vol. i. p. 276.) ——Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. iv. 
See following note (c). 


914 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


called ‘arree et arrabones,’ the earnest of marriage ; as also by 
a ring, a kiss, a dowry, a writing or instrument of dowry, with 
a sufficient number of witnesses to attest it. After which 
there was no receding from the contract, or refusal to be made 
of marriage, without great penalties and forfeitures in law, and 
incurring many times the highest censures of the Church. 
These were the preparatory ceremonies, or harbingers and 
forerunners of the future marriage, which were generally ob- 
served by obligation of the Roman laws, though not all of 
equal necessity to all manner of persons: for the law made 
some distinctions, and allowed of dispensations in some of 
these points to certain orders of men in some particular cases. 
As to the marriage itself, custom generally prevailed to have 
it solemnized by the ministers of the Church; though, as the 
state of the Roman empire then stood, this was not absolutely 
necessary by any law; nor were those marriages annulled that 
were performed otherwise. But when it was done by the 
ministers, it was performed with a solemn benediction, toge- 
ther with the ceremonies of a veil, and a coronet, and some 
other rites ; of which more in their proper place. 


Sect. I].—Free Consent of Parties necessary in Espousals. 


I begin with the ceremonies observed in espousals: where, 
first of all, there was necessary a free consent of the parties 
contracting. This was the old Roman law, called ‘ Lex Papia 
et Julia,’ confirmed by Diocletian, and inserted by Justinian 
into his Code*. The discipline of the laws does not permit, 
that a son should be compelled to marry a wife against his 
will; and, therefore, though parents had a right to dispose of 
their children in marriage, and children could not legally marry 
without their consent, as is expressed in the same law, as has 
been fully showed before*;—yet children had an equal right 
to dispose of themselves, and ought not to be compelled by 


© Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. iv. de Nuptiis, leg. xii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 149.) 
Nee filium quidem familias invitum ad uxorem ducendam cogi, legum disciplina 
permittit. IRgitur, sicut desideras, observatis juris preeceptis, sociare conjugio 
tuo quam volueris, non impedieris: ita tamen, ut contrahendis nuptiis patris tui 
consensus accedat. 

d Chap. ii. sect. iv. pp. 289, 200. 


Cuap. III. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. j 915 


their parents to make any contract absolutely against their 
own inclinations. If a virgin was betrothed by the consent 
of a father®, or a mother, or a guardian, before she was ten 
years old, in that case she might still refuse to complete the 
marriage without any quadruple forfeiture (which the law re- 
quired for breach of contract in other cases), either to be 
exacted of her or her parents, because she was not yet of age 
to give any consent to an espousal: as Gothofred shows out of 
Dio, and the ancient laws. If she was above ten, and not yet 
full twelve years old, when she was betrothed by her parents, 
and afterward refused to complete the marriage, her parents 
might be amerced, but not the virgin; because she was not 
yet of age and ripeness of judgment to give her free consent to 
such a contract. If she was above twelve years old when she 
made the contract, she was liable to be amerced quadruple by 
law for not completing the marriage according to the espousal 
contract. But then she had a just action of recovery of what- 
ever she forfeited, against a mother, or a tutor, or a guardian, 
if she could prove that she was compelled by force to give her 
assent to the acceptance of the ‘arree,’ or ‘donations’ made to 
her upon the espousal. And for the same reason, as I have 
showed before’, any woman who entered into an espousal con- 
tract with a governor of a province, during the year of his 
administration, was at perfect liberty, when the year was 
ended, whether she would fulfil the contracts, and marry him, 
or not: because it was presumed, that he, being in superemi- 
nent authority and power, might overawe a woman, and terrify 


e Lex Theodosii in Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsalibus, leg. vi. 
(Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 269.) Patri, matri, tutori, vel cuicunque, ante decimum 
puellee annum datis sponsalibus, quadrupli peenam remittimus, etsi nuptize non 
sequantur. Quod si decimo anno vel ultra, pater quisve alius, ad quem puellee 
ratio pertinet, ante duodecim annos, id est, usque in undecimi metas, suscepta 
erediderit pignora esse retinenda, deinceps, adventante tempore nuptiarum, a 
fide absistens, quadrupli fiat obnoxius. . . . Duodecimo autem anno impleto, 
quisquis de nuptiis paciscitur, si quidem pater, semetipsum obliget ; si mater, 
curatorve, aut alii parentes, puella fiat obnoxia. Cui quidem contra matrem, 
tutorem, curatorem, eumve parentem, actio ex bono et ex zequo integra reser- 
vatur eorum pignorum, quze ex propriis juxta poenam juris reddiderit facul- 
tatibus, si ad consensum accipiendarum arrarum, ab his se ostenderit fuisse 
compulsam. — 

f Chap. ii. sect. vii. p. 294. 


316 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


her into an espousal against her will and real inclination. 
Such provident care did the ancient law take to secure the 
liberty of such as entered into espousal contracts, that nothing 
of this kind should stand firm, but what was voluntarily agreed 
upon by the free consent of each contracting party, without 
any force or violence of any kind intervening to compel them. 


Secr. I1].—The Contract of Espousals usually testified by Gifts, 
called ‘ Arve, or ‘ Donationes Sponsalitize,’ which were some- 
times mutually given and received both by the Man and 


Woman. 


When the contract was thus made, it was usual for the man 
to bestow certain gifts on the woman, as tokens and pledges 
of the espousal: and sometimes, but not so commonly, the 
woman made presents to the man upon the same account. 
These are sometimes called ‘sponsalia,’ ‘espousals,’ and some- 
times ‘sponsalitize donationes,’ ‘espousal gifts,’ and ‘ arree et 
pignora,’ ‘earnests and pledges of future marriage :’ because 
the giving and receiving them was a confirmation of the con- 
tract, and an obligation on the parties to take each other for 
man and wife, unless some legal reason gave them liberty to do 
otherwise. These were commonly given by the men, as I said, 
and sometimes by the women, though but rarely, as is noted in 
one of the laws of Constantine, which orders’, ‘“ That if the 
woman give any thing to the man upon the title of espousal 
(which is a thing that seldom happens), in case either the man 
or the woman chanced to die before the marriage was com- 
pleted, the whole dominion and property of whatever she gave, 
should return to her, if she survived, or else to her heirs and 
successors.” And the case was much the same with the dona- 
tions made by the man to the woman, upon the death of either 
party before marriage: only with this difference, that if the 
man confirmed his donation by the intervention of the solemn 
kiss (of which ceremony more by and by), then in case of 


& Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsal. leg. v. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 267.) 
Si sponsa sponsaliorum titulo (quod raro accidit) fuerit aliquid sponso largita, 
et ante nuptias hune vel illam mori contigerit, omni donatione infirmata, ad 
donatricem sponsam, sive ejus successores, donatarum rerum dominium trans- 
feratur. 


Cnap. III. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 317 


death the donation was to be divided between the survivor and 
the heirs of the deceased party: but if the ceremony of the 
kiss was not superadded, the whole donation was to be re- 
stored, in case either party died, either to the donor himself 
surviving, or to his heirs and successors. Though, by a former 
law of Constantine", the donations both of the man and woman 
were exactly upon the same foot, and both to be restored, in 
case of death, without any distinction. 


Secr. 1V.—These Donations to be entered into Public Acts, and 
set upon Record. 


To make these donations more firm and sure, it was re- 
quired that they should be entered into public acts, and set 
upon record, as well to ascertain them against the accidents of 
death, as against the falseness and perfidiousness of either 
party. This is expressly provided in one of the laws of Con- 
stantine’, “‘ That no donation between man and woman, in the 
business of espousals, should be of any force, unless it was 
testified by a public act.” But this afterward received some 
limitations : for Constantine himself, by another law, made an 
exception in the case of minors/, “‘ That if any espousal gifts 
were given to women that contracted and married under age, 
they should not be revoked upon pretence that they were not 
entered into public acts.” And this was confirmed by another 
law of Theodosius Junior referring to it; who also added 
another exception", ‘ That if the donation did not exceed the 


h Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsal. leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 263.) 
Quoniam fieri potest, ut moriatur alter adhuc incolumi voluntate, prius quam 
nuptize contrahantur, congruum duximus, eo, in quem fuerat facta donatio, ante 
matrimonii diem functo, que sponsaliorum titulo vel data, vel ullo genere 
donata sunt, ad eum, qui donaverat, revocari: eo etiam, qui donaverat, ante 
nuptias mortuo, mox infirmari donationem, et ad ejus hzeredes sine aliqua diffi- 
eultate detrahi res donatas. 

i Tbid. leg. i. (ibid. vol. i. p. 261.) Inter sponsos quoque ac sponsas, omnes- 
que personas eam solam donationem, ex promulgate legis tempore, valere san- 
cimus, quam testificatio actorum sequuta est. 

J Ibid. leg. iii. (p. 264.) Si futuris conjugibus (tempore nuptiarum intra 
zetatem constitutis) res fuerint donatze et traditee, non ideo posse eas revocari, 
quia actis consignare donationem quondam maritus noluit. 

K Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsal. leg. viii. (Lugd. 1695. vol. i. p. 272.) 
Illa manente lege, quze minoribus ztate feminis, etiam actorum testificatione 


318 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


sum of two hundred shillings, there should be no necessity to 
have it recorded to make it firm.” Justinian! extended this 
exception further to the sum of three hundred shillings, and at 
last to five hundred™, to be ascertained to the woman, if given 
to her upon espousal, without any further ‘insinuation,’ as the 
law terms it, or entering into public acts and monuments, to 
make it secure in law from all reclaiming. 


Sect. V.—The Contract further testified by giving and 

receiving of a Ring. 

Together with these espousal gifts, or as a part of them, it 
was usual for the man to give the woman a ring, as a further 
token and testimony of the contract™™. This was an inno- 
cent ceremony used by the Romans before the times of Chris- 
tianity ", and in some measure admitted by the Jews: whence 
it was adopted among the Christian rites of espousal without 
any opposition or contradiction: I say, the rites of espousal: 
for that it was used in the solemnity of marriage itself origi- 
nally, does not so evidently appear: though some who con- 
found the rites of espousal with those of marriage, bring the 
evidences of the former as proofs of the later custom. That 
the ring was used in espousals, and not in the solemnity of 
marriage itself, in the time of Pope Nicolas (an. 860), seems 
pretty evident, from the distinct account which he gives of the 
ceremonies used in the Roman Church, first in espousals, and 


omissa, si patris auxilio destitutee sint, juste consuluit, ete. ... In illa donatione, 
que in omnibus intra ducentorum solidorum est quantitatem, nee actorum con- 
fectio queerenda. 

! Cod. Justin. lib. viii. tit. liv. de Donationibus, leg. xxxiv. (Amstelod. 1663. 
p- 283.) Sancimus omnem donationem, sive communem, sive ante nuptias fac- 
tam, usque ad trecentos solidos cumulatam, non indigere monumentis, ete. 

m Ibid. leg. xxxvi. (p. 284.) Ceteris etiam donationibus, quee gestis interve- 
nientibus minime sunt insinuate, sine aliqua distinctione usque ad quingentos 
solidos valituris: hoe etenim tantummodo ad augendas hujusmodi donationes 
addendum esse ex preesenti lege decernimus, anteriore tempore nostra lege 
preecedente moderando, qua usque ad trecentos solidos factze donationes, et sine 
insinuatione firmitatem obtinere jussze sunt. 

mm Baronius. (Luez, vol. i. p. 435.) Clemens Alexandrinus (Peedag. lib. iii. 
6. xi.) testatur consuevisse Christianas mulieres annulos aureos gestare; dari 
vero eos solitos a sponsis arrhze nomine, usus docet. 

n Seld. Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. 6. xiv. and xv. 


Cnar. III. § 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 319 


then in the solemnity of marriage, which he plainly speaks of 
as distinct things. ‘‘ With us,” says he®, “after the espousals, 
which are a promise of future marriage, the marriage covenants 
are celebrated, with the consent of those who have contracted, 
and of those in whose power they are.” Then he describes 
distinctly the ceremonies peculiar to each. ‘‘ In the espousals 
the man first presents the woman, whom he betroths, with the 
‘arre,’ or ‘espousal gifts ;? and among these, he puts a ring 
upon her finger ; then he delivers the dowry agreed upon by 
both parties, in writing, before witnesses invited on both sides 
to attest the agreement. Thus far the espousals. After this, 
either presently, or in some convenient time following, that 
nothing might be done before the time appointed by law, they 
are both brought to the nuptial solemnity. Where, first of 
all, they are placed in the church, to offer their oblations by 
the hands of the priest: and then they receive the benediction 
and the celestial veil: and, after this, going out of the church, 
they wear crowns or garlands upon their heads, which are kept 
in the church for that purpose.” Here we have the ceremo- 
nies of espousals, and the ceremonies of marriage, distinctly 
described : and among the ceremonies of espousals we find the 
ring, but not mentioned again in the ceremonies of marriage : 
which makes it probable, that it was then only a ceremony of 
the former, and not of the latter. And thus it was used among 
the ancient Christians in their espousals, as an ‘arra,’ or 
‘earnest,’ of their future marriage, but not in the solemnity of 
marriage itself, as far as we can learn from any accounts that 
are given of it. St. Ambrose speaks of it, but only amongst 


© Nicol. Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, (Labbe, vol. viii. p. 517.) et ap. 
Gratian. Caus. xxx. queest. v. ον iii. Apud nostrates post sponsalia, quee futurarum 
nuptiarum sunt promissa federa, queeque consensu eorum qui heee contrahunt, 
et corum in quorum potestate sunt, celebrantur, et postquam arris sponsam sibi 
sponsus per digitum fidei a se annulo insignitum responderit ; dotemque utri- 
que placitam sponsus ei cum scripto pactum hoe continente, coram invitatis ab 
utraque parte tradiderit ; aut mox, aut apto tempore (ne videlicet ante tempus 
lege definitum tale quid facere praesumatur) ambo ad nuptialia federa perdu- 
euntur. Et primum quidem in ecclesia Domini cum oblationibus, quas offerre 
debent Deo per sacerdotis manum, statuuntur: sicque demum benedictionem 
et velamen cceleste suscipiunt.... Post heee autem de ecclesia egressi coronas 
in capitibus gestant, quee semper in ecclesia ipsa sunt solitee reservari. 


1 


320 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII, 


the rites of espousal, and not of marriage: for, describing the 
behaviour of St. Agnes, the virgin, when the governor of 
Rome, courting her, offered her the espousal gifts, he brings 
her in thus replying ”, “‘ Depart from me, thou solicitor to sin : 
for I am already prevented by another lover, who has bestowed 
upon me much better ornaments, and betrothed me with the 
ring of his faith, being far more noble both in birth and dig- 
nity :” meaning Christ, to whom she was espoused spiritually 
by the profession of virginity. And, before him, Tertullian 4 
speaks of the ‘annulus pronubus,’ or ‘ ring of espousals before 
marriage :᾿ inveighing against the heathens for having dege- 
nerated from the institutions of their ancestors, which taught 
women modesty and sobriety, when they knew no other use of 
gold but upon one of their fingers, which their spouse adorned 
with the ring of espousals.—He does not expressly say that 
the ring was used by Christians, but he speaks of it as a Jaud- 
able ceremony, that might be used by any, and was actually 
used by the heathens in their espousals. And in another 
place he says’, ‘It was innocently used in their espousals : 
and therefore a Christian might lawfully be present either at 
the espousals or the marriages of the heathens, as at any 
other private and common solemnity,—of giving a youth the 
‘toga virilis,’ ‘the habit of a man, or giving a slave a new 
name at his manumission: for all these things were pure and 
clean of their own nature; and neither the ring in espousals, 
nor the joining of a man and woman in marriage, descended 
originally from any honour of an idol.” Clemens Alexandrinus 


P Ambros. Ep. xxxiv. (tom. v. Opp. p. 274, edit. Paris. 1642.) Discede a me, 
fomes peccati, nutrimentum facinoris, pabulum mortis: discede a me, quia jam 
ab alio amatore preeventa sum, qui mihi satis meliora te obtulit ornamenta, et 
annulo fidei suze subarravit me, longe te nobilior et genere et dignitate.+ 

4 Tertul. Apol. c. vi. (Paris. 1664. p. 7, A 8.) Circa feminas etiam illa majo- 
rum instituta ceciderunt, quee modestize, quee sobrietati patrocinabantur ; cum 
aurum nulla norat, preeter unico digito, quem sponsus oppignorasset pronubo 
annulo. 

r Tbid. de Idol. ο. xvi. (ibid. p. 95, C.) Cirea officia privatarum et commu- 
nium solennitatum, ut togee puree, ut sponsalium, ut nuptiarum, ut nominalium, 
nullum putem periculum observari de flatu idololatriee, quee intervenit : causze 
enim sunt considerandze, quibus preestatur officium. Eas mundas esse opinor 
per semetipsas: quia neque vestitus virilis, neque annulus, aut conjunctio 
maritalis, de alicujus idoli honore descendit. 


Crap. III. 8 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 20] 
is cited by Mr. Selden himself, as an evidence of the antiquity 
of the use of the ring in espousals among Christians. He 
says, ‘the ring is given her, not as an ornament, but as a 
seal, to signify the woman’s duty in preserving the goods of 
her husband, because the care of the house belongs to her.” 


Secr. VI.—And by a solemn Kiss, and Joining of Hands. 


Another ceremony used in espousals sometimes, was the 
solemn kiss, which the man gave to the woman in confirmation 
of the contract. This was a known rite used among Christians 
in their sacred and religious offices, to testify their cordial love, 
and union, and friendship, one with another: of which I have 
spoken in another placet. Therefore, Constantine, in one of 
his laws, made it a ceremony of espousals, being as proper for 
this act as any other. And he laid some stress upon it". 
“For if a man betrothed a woman by the intervention of the 
kiss, then if either party died before marriage, the heirs of the 
deceased party were intituled to half the donations, and the 
survivor to the other half: but if the contract was made with- 
out the intervention of the solemn kiss, then upon the death 
of either party before marriage, the whole of the espousal gifts 
was to be restored to the donor or his heirs at law.” And 
this was made a standing law by Justinian ἡ, who inserted it 
into his Code. This ceremony was an ancient rite used by 
the heathens, together with the joining of hands, in their 
espousals: as we learn from Tertullian, who says, ‘“ Virgins 


5. Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. 6. xxv. (Wilkins, Lond. 1726. vol. ii. p. 666.) 
Clem. Pzedagog. lib. iii. ὁ. xi. (Oberthiir, vol. iv. p. 594, at bottom.) (Oxon. 
p- 287.) Aidwow αὐταῖς δακτύλιον ἐκ χρυσίου" οὐδὲ τοῦτον εἰς κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ 





εἰς τὸ ἀποσημαίνεσθαι τὰ οἴκοι φυλακῆς ἄξια, διὰ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τῆς 
οἰκουρίας. 

t Book xv. chap. iii. sect. iii. vol. v. Ὁ. 76. 

u Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsal. leg. v. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 267.) 
Si, ab sponso rebus sponse donatis, interveniente osculo, ante nuptias hune vel 
illam mori contigerit, dimidiam partem rerum donatarum ad superstitem perti- 
nere przecipimus, dimidiam ad defuncti vel defunctze heredes. . . . Osculo vero 
non interveniente, sive sponsus sive sponsa obierit, totam infirmari donationem, 
et donatori sponso sive heredibus ejus restitui. 

Y Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. iii, de Donation. ante Nupt. leg. xvi. (Amstel. 1663. 
p- 147.) 

w Tertul. de Veland. Virgin. ec. xi. (Paris. 1664. p. 179, Ὁ 3.) Apud ethnicos 

VOL. VII. δῷ 


399 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


came veiled to the men, when they made their espousals by a 
kiss and joining of their right hands together; which was the 
first resignation of their virgin bashfulness, when they joined 
both in body and spirit with a man.” Now, these ceremonies, 
being innocent in themselves, seem to have been adopted by 
Christians, with other such customs, into their espousals, who 
never scrupled any innocent rites because they had been used 
by heathens, except such as naturally tended to defile them 
with some unavoidable stain of idolatry and superstition. 


Secr. VII.—And by settling of a Dowry, in Writing. 


Another part of the espousals was the husband’s settling a 
dowry upon the woman, to which she should be intituled after 
his death. ‘There are several laws in both the Codes relating 
to this matter *, and containing abundance of law-cases, which 
are not proper to be inserted in this discourse. I only observe 
two things : first, that the stipulation, or promise of a dowry 
was so usual, that one of the Councils of Arles, mentioned by 
Gratian, has a canon that orders ¥, ‘“ That no marriage should 
be made without a dowry, but that there should be something 
more or less promised, according to men’s ability.” Secondly, 
this stipulation was commonly made in writing, or public in- 
struments under hand and seal: whence the civil law so often 
speaks of the ‘ instrumenta dotalia,’ ‘the instruments of dowry,’ 
that were ordinarily required in marriage-contracts. And in 
allusion to these, Asterius Amasenus”, dissuading men from 


velatee ad virum ducuntur. Ad desponsationem velantur, quia et corpore et 
spiritu masculo mixtze sunt per osculum et dexteras, per quee primum resigna- 
runt pudorem spiritus, ete. 

* Cod. Theod. lib. iii, tit. xiii. de Dotibus. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 300.)—— 
Lib. ii. tit. xxi. de Inofficiosis Dotalibus. (p. 185.) Cod. Justin. lib. v. 
tit, xi— xv. (Amstel. 1663. p. 155.) 

Υ Cone. Arelat. c. vi. ap. Gratian. Caus. xxx. queest. v. 6. vi. (Pithceus, Paris. 
1687. vol. 1. p. 377.) Nullum sine dote fiat conjugium: juxta possibilitatem fiat 
dos. 

z Aster. Hom. in Matth. xix. 3. (Combefis, Auctar. Nov. p. 81, D.) Πῶς δὲ 
ἀθετήσεις τὰς ὁμολογίας, ἃς ἐπὶ τῷ γάμῳ κατέθου; Kai ποίας οἴει μὲ λέγειν; 





ἄρα τῆς προικὸς τῆς συγγραφείσης ἐνταῦθα, OTE τῇ σαυτοῦ χειρὶ ἐπεσημήνω 

τῷ βιβλίῳ ἐπισφραγιζόμενος τὰ τελούμενα ; ἰσχυρὰ μὲν κἀκεῖνα, καὶ ἱκανὴν 
‘ ? , ” e CY 3 ‘ μὴ δι 4 ~ ») A > 4 > 

THY ἀσφάλειαν ἔχοντα' πλὴν ἐγὼ πρὸς τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ ἐμαυτὸν ἀνα- 


Crap. IIT. 8 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 393 
divorce, asks them, ‘“ how they would reseind and cancel their 
covenants of marriage? What covenants do you think 1 
mean? Those wherein the dowry is written, signed with your 
own hand, and sealed with your own seal? These are strong 
and firm enough indeed: but I carry my meaning a little 
higher, to the words of Adam: ‘ This is flesh of my flesh, and 
bone of my bone: she shall be called woman.” This is a 
plain allusion to the then known custom of making instruments 
of dowry before marriage, and confirming them with their hand 
and seal, to give them legal strength and obligation. 


Secr. VIII.—And by transacting the whole affair before a 
competent number of Witnesses. 


To make the whole business of espousals not only the more 
solemn, but also the more firm and sure, it was usual to trans- 
act the whole affair publicly before a competent number of 
chosen witnesses, that is, the presence of the friends of each 
party, to avoid, chiefly, clandestine contracts. I know not 
whether the law specified any certain number, otherwise than 
ealling it ‘frequentia et fides amicorum,’ ‘the presence and 
testimony of friends*;’ but custom seems to have determined 
it to the number of ten: as appears from a noted passage in 
St. Ambrose , where, speaking to a virgin that had fallen from 
her virgin state, he thus argues with her: “ If any woman, 
who, before ten witnesses, has made espousals, and is joined in 
marriage with a mortal man, cannot, without great danger, 
commit adultery ; how do you think will it be, when a spiritual 
marriage, that is made before innumerable witnesses of the 
Church, and before the angels, the heavenly host, is broken by 


φέρω" τοῦτο σὰρξ ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν μου, καὶ ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν μου" αὕτη 
κληθήσεταί μου γυνή. 

a Cod, Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 276.) 
Nuptias nobiles nemo redimat, nemo sollicitet ; sed publice consulatur adfinitas, 
adhibeatur frequentia Procerum.—Leg. iii. (p. 279.) Nulla lege impediente, 
fiat consortium, quod ipsorum consensu atque amicorum fide firmatur. 

b Ambros. de Virgin. Lapsu, 6. v. (Paris. 1836. vol. iii, p. 325.) Si inter 
decem testes confectis sponsaliis, nuptiis consummatis, queevis femina viro con- 
juncta mortali, non sine magno periculo perpetrat adulterium ; quidquod inter 
innumerabiles testes ecclesize, coram angelis et exercitibus cceli, facta copula 
spiritalis per adulterium solvitur ? 


Va 


324 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


adultery?” This gives us evidently to understand, that then 
the common practice was to celebrate both espousals and mar- 
riage at least before ten witnesses to attest them. 


Sect. IX.—How far the Obligation of Espousals extended. 


Now when the contract of future marriage was thus settled 
by espousals, it was not lawful for either party to join in mar- 
riage with any other, under very severe penalties (which both 
the civil and ecclesiastical law inflicted), unless the time of 
marriage was fraudulently protracted beyond two years, which 
was the time limited for the duration of espousals. Augustus 
Czesar, by those famous laws, called the Julian and Papian 
laws, had so restrained the time of espousals, as that if a man 
did not consummate the marriage within two years, he could 
reap no benefit from his espousals. But whereas soldiers, who 
were absent upon public affairs, might seem to require a longer 
time, Constantine, by one of his laws, limited them to two 
years also. So that if a woman, who was espoused to a sol- 
dier °, had waited two years, and the marriage was not com- 
pleted, she was then at liberty to marry to any other ; because 
then it was not her fault, but the man’s, who protracted the 
marriage beyond the time which the law appointed. But ifa 
father, or a mother, or a tutor, or a guardian, or any other 
relation, who had betrothed a virgin to a soldier, should after- 
ward, before the two years were expired, give her in marriage 
to any other, he should be liable to be banished, as guilty of a 
perfidious breach of contract. By another law, he also ap- 
pointed ἃ, that if a man who had espoused a woman should 


¢ Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsal. leg. iv. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 266.) 
Patri, aut matri puellze, aut tutori, vel curatori, aut cuilibet ejus adfini, non 
liceat, quum prius militi puellam desponderit, eamdem ali in matrimonium 
tradere. Quod si intra biennium, ut perfidize reus in insulam relegetur. Quod 
si pactis nuptiis transeurso biennio, qui puellam desponderit, alteri camdem 
sociarit, in culpam sponsi potius quam puellee referatur, nee quicquam noceat 
ei, qui post biennium puellam marito alteri tradiderit———Cod. Justin. lib. v. 
tit. i. de Sponsal. leg. ii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 145.) Si is, qui puellam suis 
nuptiis pactus est, intra biennium exsequi nuptias in eadem provincia degens 
supersederit, ejusque spatii fine decurso, in alterius postea conjunctionem puella 
pervenerit, nihil fraudis ei sit, quee nuptias maturando vota sua diutius eludi 
non passa est. 

ἃ Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. v. de Sponsal. leg. ii, (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 262.) 


Cuar. III. § 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 325 


afterwards refuse to marry her, upon any frivolous pretence, 
that he did not like her morals, or her pedigree, or started any 
other such trifling objection, the woman might retain whatever 
gifts he had made her upon espousal, and recover of him what- 
ever more he had promised her upon the same score, though it 
was yet actually remaining in his own possession. And, on 
the other hand, if the woman who was espoused at full age 
(that is, when she was twelve years old), refused to make good 
her contract ; or her parents or guardians would not permit 
her to do it; or if a widow, who was of age to make her own 
espousal contract, afterward fled from it ; then they were not 
only to forfeit all their espousal gifts, but also to be amerced 
quadruple for their falseness and breach of contract :—as 
appears from several laws of Theodosius and Honorius © ; 
which intimate also, that this was the old Julian and Papian 
law of the Roman empire from the time of Augustus. And 
though Leo and Anthemius a little moderated this penalty, 
yet they did not quite take it away, but only reduced it from 
quadruple to double, and so Justinian ‘ left it as the standing 
law of the empire in his Code. ‘The ecclesiastical law was no 
less severe against all such perfidiousness in espousal con- 
tracts: for the Council of Eliberis orders’, “ That if any 
parents broke the faith of espousals, they should for their 
crime be kept back three years from communion. And if 
either the man or the woman who were espoused were guilty 


Si quidem sponte vir sortiri noluerit uxorem, id quod ab eo donatum fuerat, 
nec repetatur traditum, et si quid apud donatorem resedit, ad sponsam sub- 
motis ambagibus transferatur, etc. 

e Ibid. leg. vi. (ibid. vol. i. p. 269.) See sect. ii. note (e), p. 319. 
Si pater pactum de nuptiis filize inierit, et humana sorte consumtus ad vota non 
potuerit pervenire, id inter sponsos firmum ratumque permaneat, quod a patre 
docebitur definitum: nihilque permittatur habere momenti, quod cum defensore, 
ad quem minoris commoda pertinebunt, docebitur fuisse transactum: perini- 





Leg. vii. 


quum est enim, ut contra patriam voluntatem redemti forsitan tutoris aut 
curatoris admittatur arbitrium. Tit. vi. leg. i. See chap. ii. sect. vii. note (c), 
Ρ. 294. Tit. x. leg. i. 

f Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. i. de Sponsal. leg. v. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 145.) 

& Cone. Hliber. e. liv. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 976.) Si qui parentes fidem fregerint 
sponsaliorum, triennii tempore abstineantur [abstineant se a communione]. Si 








sponsus vel sponsa in [illo] gravi crimine fuerint deprehensi, . . . superior 
sententia servetur. 


326 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


of the same crime, they should undergo the same punishment.” 
It was further appointed by the Council of Ancyra®, ‘‘ That if 
any one stole a woman that was espoused to another, she 
should be taken from him, and restored to the former who had 
before espoused her, although the raptor had committed a 
rape, and done violence to her.” And the Council of Trullo‘ 
determines it to be downright adultery for a man to marry a 
woman that was betrothed to another, during the life of him 
who had espoused her. Siricius says *, “‘ It was a sacrilegious 
act for a man to marry a woman that was before espoused to 
another ; because it was a violating the benediction which the 
priest had given to the woman espoused, in order to her future 
marriage.” By which we are given further to understand, 
that a ministerial benediction was sometimes used in espousals 
as well as marriage, though they were then separate acts from 
one another. But the obligation of espousals is not to be ex- 
tended further than the law required, which, in several cases, 
admitted of just limitations and exceptions ; as in case a parent 
disposed of a child in espousals before she was ten years old ; 
or at any other age, against her own free choice and consent ; 
or in case a judge of a province made espousals with a pro- 
vincial woman during the year of his administration ; or any 
other man protracted the time of marriage beyond the two 
years which was limited by law for the duration of espousals. 
In all these cases espousals became void; and it was no crime 
not to fulfil them, because the laws themselves only made them 
obligatory with such provisions and restrictions. 


h Cone. Ancyr. ¢. xi. (ibid. vol. i. p. 1460.) Τὰς μνηστευθείσας κόρας, καὶ 
μετὰ ταῦτα ὑπ᾽’ ἄλλων ἁρπαγείσας, ἔδοξεν ἀποδίδοσθαι τοῖς προμνηστευσα- 
μένοις εἰ καὶ βίαν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν πάθοιεν. 

i Cone. Trul. ¢, xeviii. (ibid. vol. iv. p. 1183.) Ὃ ἑτέρῳ μνηστευθεῖσαν 
γυναῖκα, ἔτι τοῦ μνηστευσαμένου ζῶντος, πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν ἀγόμενος, 
τῷ τῆς μοιχείας ὑποκείσθω ἐγκλήματι. 

k Siric. Epist. i. ad Himer. ec. iv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1019.) De conjugali 
autem violatione requisisti, si desponsatam alii puellam alter in matrimonium 
possit accipere. Hoe ne fiat, omnibus modis inhibemus: quia illa benedictio, 
quam nupture sacerdos imponit, apud fideles cujusdam sacrilegii instar est, si 
ulla transgressione violetur. 


Cuap. III. § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 8327 


Secr. X.— Whether they were simply and absolutely necessary 
to precede a Just and Legal Marriage ? 


There remains one question more to be resolved concerning 
espousals ; that is, Whether in whole, or in part, the ceremony 
of espousals was simply and absolutely necessary to go before 
a marriage, to make it just and legal? These are two very 
different questions: Whether it be necessary to observe an 
espousal contract ? and, Whether it be necessary to make such 
a contract at all before marriage, in order to make the mar- 
riage legal? And as, in the first question, the law made the 
obligation precisely necessary, except in cases otherwise by 
law determined ; so, in the second question, it laid no general 
obligation upon men at all to make formal espousals before 
marriage, but only upon some certain orders of men, for the 
dignity and conveniency of their order. This appears plainly 
from a law of Theodosius Junior, wherein he allows the legality 
of marriage without any of the ceremonies of espousal pre- 
ceding !: “ If the instruments of donation or the instruments 
of dowry be wanting, or the nuptial pomp, or other celebrities 
of marriage ; let no one reckon upon that account that the 
marriage is not good, which is otherwise rightly made: or that 
the children born in such a marriage are not to be esteemed 
legitimate ; if the marriage be celebrated between persons of 
equal rank, without any legal impediment, with the consent of 
both parties, and the testimony and approbation of friends.” 
Here, as Gothofred observes, four things are precisely required 
to a legal marriage. 1. Equality of condition: a person of 
liberal fortune was not to marry a slave, or one of vile and 
infamous character. 2. No legal impediment must prohibit 
their uniting: a Christian must not marry an infidel or Jew, 
nor one of his near kindred, nor a provincial judge a woman 
of his own province in the time of his administration: because 


1 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. iii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 279.) 
Si donationum ante nuptias vel dotis instrumenta defuerint, pompa etiam 
aliaque celebritas omittatur; nullus zestimet ob id deesse, recte alias inito 
matrimonio, firmitatem, vel ex eo natis liberis jura posse legitimorum auferri, si 
inter pares honestate personas, nulla lege impediente, fiat consortium, quod 
ipsorum consensu atque amicorum fide firmatur. 


328 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


these were things prohibited by the law. 8. There must be 
free consent of both parties, without which no marriage was 
valid or firm. 4. There must be consent of parents, and a 
sufficient number of friends, to attest the fact, and prevent 
clandestine marriage. These things being observed, there was 
no necessity of a preceding espousal, or any of the ceremonies 
and formalities of it, to make the marriage good in law; all 
necessaries being thus provided in the act of marriage itself, 
as it is now with us at this day, among whom the formality of 
espousals is in a great measure laid aside. And thus the 
matter continued from the time of Theodosius to Justinian, 
who thought it reasonable to make a little exception to the 
former law: for in one of his Novels (made after his Code, 
which was the former law of Theodosius in the same terms), 
he afterward made a distinction betwixt the nobles and those 
of inferior order™: ‘“‘ The greater dignities, and senators, 
and men in high stations, were not to marry without first 
settling the dowry and antenuptial donation, and all other 
ceremonies which became great names. But the better sort 
of military men, and tradesmen, and men of honourable 
profession, might, if they pleased, marry without instru- 
ments of donation and dowry: yet not altogether without 
stipulation of dowry, and evidence of their marriage. For 
they were to go to a church, and there, before the defensor of 
the church, make public profession of their marriage: and he, 
taking three or four of the most reverend of the clergy of the 


m Justin. Novel. Ixxiv. ec. iv. (Amstel. 1663. p. 108, § α΄.) ᾿Επὶ μὲν τῶν 
μειζόνων ἀξιωμάτων, καὶ boa μέχρι τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐστὶ συγκλητικῶν Kai 
τῶν μεγαλοπρεπεστάτων ἰλλουστρίων, οὐδὲ γίνεσθαι ταῦτα παντελῶς ἀνεχό- 
μεθα ἀλλ᾽ ἔστω πάντως Kai προῖξ, καὶ προγαμιαία δωρεὰ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα 
πάντα, boa τοῖς σεμνοτέροις πρέπει τῶν ὀνομάτων. Ὅσον δὲ ἐν στρατείαις 
τε σεμνοτέραις καὶ ἐμπορίαις, καὶ ὅλως ἐν ἐπιτηδεύσεσιν ἀξιολογωτέραις 
ἐστὶν, εἰ βούλοιτο νομίμως γυναικὶ συνελθεῖν, καὶ μὴ ποιήσασθαι γάμων 
συμβόλαια" μὴ οὕτως εἰκῆ καὶ ἀπαραφυλάκτως καὶ ἐκκεχυμένως καὶ ἀναπο- 
δείκτως τοῦτο πραττέτω, ἀλλὰ παραγενέσθω πρός τινα τῶν εὐκτηρίων 
οἴκων, κοινωσάσθω TE τῷ τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκείνης ἐκκλησίας ἐκδίκῳ: ὁ δὲ 
παραλαβὼν τρεῖς ἢ τέσσαρας τῶν ἐκεῖσε εὐσεβεστάτων κληρικῶν, ἐκμαρτυ- 
ρίαν συνιστάτω, δηλοῦσαν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆσδε τῆς ἐπινεμήσεως, τοῦδε τοῦ μηνὸς 
ἄγοντος τόσην ἡμέραν, τῆς βασιλείας ἔτους τόσου, ὑπατείας τοιᾶσδε, ἦλθον 
παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐν τῷδε TH εὐκτηρίῳ οἴκῳ ὁ δεῖνα καὶ ἡ δεῖνα, καὶ συνηρμόσθη- 


σαν ἀλλήλοις" καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην ἐκμαρτυρίαν εἰ μὲν ἐκλαβεῖν βούλονται Fj 


Cuap. ILI. § 10. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 329 


church, shall draw a public attestation, showing, that in such 
an indiction, and in such a month, on such a day of the month, 
in such a year of our reign, when such a one was consul, such 
a man and such a woman came before him in that church, and 
were joined together in matrimony. And if both of them, or 
either of them, are minded to carry away with them a copy of 
such attestation, the defensor of the church, and the other 
three, shall make one for them, and subscribe it. And, how- 
ever that be, the defensor shall lay up the original attestation 
in the archives of the church, that it may be a muniment to 
all; and they shall not be reputed to have come together with 
nuptial affection unless this be done, and the matter be so wit- 
nessed with letters testimonial. When this is so done, both 
the marriage and the offspring shall be reputed legitimate. 
This is the order to be observed, where there is no instrument 
of dowry, or of antenuptial donation: for the testimony of 
bare witnesses without writing is suspicious.” This was the 
order for persons of a middle rank and condition to avoid 
clandestine marriages. Then the law goes on for persons of 


ἀμφότεροι οἱ συνιόντες, ἢ Kai ἕτερος αὐτῶν, Kai τοῦτο πραττέτωσαν" καὶ 
ὑπογραφέτωσαν ταύτῃ ὅ τε τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας ἔκδικος, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ 
τρεῖς, ἢ ὅσους ἂν βουληθείη (οὐκ ἐλάττους μέντοι τῶν τριῶν) γράμματα, 
τοῦτο σημαίνοντα. (8 β΄.) Εἰ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο μὴ πράξαιεν ἐκεῖνοι, ἀλλὰ τὸν 
τοιοῦτον ἀποτιθέσθω χάρτην ὁ τῆς σεβασμιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας ἐκείνης ἔκδικος 
ἐν τοῖς τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας ἀρχείοις, . . . τὰς εἰρημένας ὑποση- 
μειώσεις ἔχοντα: ὥστε ἀποκεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἀσφάλειαν, 
καὶ μὴ ἄλλως δοκεῖν γαμικῇ διαθέσει τούτους αὐτοὺς συνεληλυθέναι, πλὴν 
εἰ μὴ τοιοῦτό τι πραχθείη, καὶ ὕλως ἐκ γραμμάτων τὸ πρᾶγμα μαρτυροῖτο" 
τούτων δὲ οὕτω γενομένων, καὶ τὸν γάμον καὶ τὰς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γονὰς εἶναι 
γομίμους" ταῦτα δὲ φαμὲν, ἔνθα μὴ προικὸς ἢ προγαμιαίας δωρεᾶς γίνεται 
συμβόλαιον. τὴν γὰρ ἐκ μόνων μαρτύρων πίστιν ὑποπτεύοντες, ἐπὶ τὴν 
παροῦσαν ἐληλύθαμεν διατύπωσιν. (ὃ γ΄.) Τὸ δὲ ὅσον ἐν καταπεφρονημένῳ 
διαζῇ βίῳ, μικρᾶς μὲν οὐσίας κύριον καθεστὼς, εἰς ἔσχατον δὲ τοῦ δήμου 
μέρος ἀποκείμενον, τοῦτο ἐχέτω καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἄδειαν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ 
γεωργοὺς, ἢ στρατιώτας ἐνόπλους, οὺς ὁ νόμος καλιγάτους καλεῖ [τουτέστιν 
εὐτελεστέρους καὶ ἀφανεστέρους}] περιεργαζόμεθα, οἷς ἡ τῶν πολιτικῶν 
πραγμάτων ἀμαθία, καὶ ἡ μόνης τῆς περὶ τὴν γῆν ἐργασίας καὶ περὶ τοὺς 
πολέμους ἐπιθυμία, πρᾶγμά ἐστι περισπούδαστον καὶ δικαίως ἐπαινούμενον" 
ὥστε ἐπί τε τῶν εὐτελῶν προσώπων, ἐπί τε στρατιωτῶν ἐνόπλων ἀφανῶν, 
καὶ γεωργῶν, ἄδεια ἔστω αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀγράφως συνιέναι, καὶ συνοικεῖν ἀλλή- 
Note? καὶ ἔστωσαν οἱ παῖδες γνήσιοι, τῇ τῶν πατέρων μετριότητι, ἢ 


στρατιωτικαῖς ἢ γεωργικαῖς ἀσχολίαις τε καὶ ἀγνοίαις βοηθούμενοι. 


330 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


the lowest rank and poorer condition; that is, husbandmen 
and common soldiers, who were occupied in tilling the land, 
and war, and were supposed to be ignorant of civil causes or 
the law; “their marriage is declared legitimate, though they 
came together only before witnesses, without any instrument 
in writing at all. Yea, if such a one took a woman for his 
wife, upon oath", touching the Holy Gospels, whether in the 
church or out of the church, the marriage was legitimate, if 
the woman could make legal proof that she was so married 
to him; and she might claim a fourth part of his substance, . 
though she had no instrument of dowry to show for it.” I 
have transcribed this long passage of Justinian, both because 
it shows, in general, the different ways of marrying that were 
then allowed by the civil law, and also, in particular, that there 
was no absolute necessity of the preceding formality of ante- 
nuptial instruments of dowry or donation, to make a marriage 
firm and valid in all cases. And by this we may fairly under- 
stand and interpret that difficult canon of the first Council of 
Toledo, which orders®, “ That a man who has not a wife, but 
only a concubine instead of a wife, shall not be rejected from 
the communion, provided he be content to be joined to one 
woman only, whether concubine or wife, as he pleases.” For 


n Justin. Novel. Ixxiv. ὁ. v. (Amstel. 1663. p. 108.) ᾿Επειδὴ δὲ ἐκ τῶν 
προσελεύσεων, THY γινομένων ἡμῖν ἀεὶ, συχνότερον δὲ πάντων, γυναικῶν 
ἀκούομεν ὀδυρομένων, καὶ προσαγγελλουσῶν, ὥς τινες προσπαθείᾳ κρατού- 
μένοι πρὸς αὐτὰς, εἶτα ταύτας ἀνάγουσιν οἴκοι, καὶ τῶν θείων ἁπτόμενοι 
λογίων, ἢ ἐν εὐκτηρίοις οἴκοις ὀμόσαντες ἢ μὴν ἕξειν αὐτὰς νομίμους γαμε- 
τὰς, οὕτως αὐτὰς οἰκειοῦνται χρόνον πολὺν, καὶ παιδοποιοῦσιν ἴσως" εἶτα 
ἐπειδὰν ἐμπλεσθεῖεν τῆς αὐτῶν ἐπιθυμίας, ἢ τῶν παίδων χωρὶς, ἢ μετὰ 
τῶν παίδων, ἀποῤῥίπτουσι τῶν οἴκων" ἐκρίναμεν καὶ τοῦτο χρῆναι θερα- 
πεῦσαι, καὶ, εἴπερ ἡ γυνὴ δεῖξαι δυνηθείη τρόποις νομίμοις, ὅτι κατὰ τοῦτο 
τὸ σχῆμα ὁ ἀνὴρ ταύτην ἔλαβεν οἴκοι, ἐπὶ τῷ γυναῖκα γνησίαν ἔχειν, καὶ 
παίδων γνησίων μητέρα, μηκέτι παντελῶς ἄδειαν αὐτῷ καθεστάναι ταύτην 
παρὰ τὴν τοῦ νόμου τάξιν ἐξωθεῖν τῆς οἰκίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχειν γνησίαν καὶ τοὺς 
παῖδας γνησίους αὐτῷ καθεστάναι" καὶ ἐκείνην μὲν, εἴπερ ἄπροικος εἴη, τῶν 
ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας διατάξεως ἀπολαύειν ἀγαθῶν, τὸ τέταρτον τῆς περιουσίας 
τοῦ ἀνδρὸς λαμβάνουσαν, εἴτε ἐξωθείη, εἴτε καὶ προαποβάλοι τὸν ἄνδρα, 
κι T.A. See Novel. exvii. cap. iv. 

© Cone. Tolet, I. c. xvii. (Labbe, vol. ii, p. 1226.) Qui non habet uxorem, 
et pro uxore concubinam habet, a communione non repellatur; tantum ut unius 
mulieris, aut uxoris, aut concubine (ut ei placuerit), sit conjunctione contentus. 


"» 


2 


Cuap. IV. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 331 


before the matter was fully settled by these laws of Theodosius 
and Justinian, a woman that was married to a man without 
the antenuptial instruments of dowry and donation, and other 
formalities of the law, was not called a wife, but only a con- 
cubine, in the language of the law: but, in the ecclesiastical 
_ sense, she was reputed a true wife, because she bound herself 
by marriage-contract to be just and true to one man, though 
they joined together without the preceding formalities of ante- 
nuptial espousal, which the law then required : and therefore 
the fathers at Toledo made no distinction between a wife and 
a concubine, as to what concerned the discipline of the Church, 
provided the woman, whom the law called a concubine, was in 
reality a wife by marriage-contract; though she wanted the 
formality of espousal, which was then required in the civil law, 
but afterwards relaxed in some cases by the edicts of Theo- 
dosius and Justinian, as I have here showed, after the time of 
the Council of Toledo. And thus much for the laws and rules 
concerning espousals before marriage : I now come to the rites 
and ceremonies of marriage itself, 





CHAPTER IV. 


OF THE MANNER OF CELEBRATING MARRIAGE IN THE 
ANCIENT CHURCH. 


Sect. I1.— The Solemnities of Marriage between Christians 
usually celebrated by the Ministers of the Church from the 
Beginning. 

Here the first questions will be, By whom the ceremonies 

and solemnities of marriage were anciently performed? And, 

Whether the benediction of a minister was necessary, as in 

after-ages, to make a marriage firm and good, according to the 

laws of church and state? To answer these questions aright, 
we must premise some necessary distinctions: 1. Between 
marriages made among Christians one with another, and mar- 
riages made between Christians and infidels, Jews, heathens, 
and heretics. 2. Between marriages made according to the 


332 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


tenour and direction of the laws, and marriages made against 
them. 3. Between disapproving of the undue manner of a 
marriage, and declaring it absolutely no marriage, or utterly 
null and void. Now if the question be first concerning Chris- 
tians marrying one with another, By whom the solemnity of 
marriage was performed; by a minister of the Church, or by 
any other ;—I answer, that it is most probable, that in fact, 
for the first three hundred years, the solemnities of marriage 
were usually performed by the ministers of the Church. But, 
secondly, if Christians happened to marry with Jews, or hea- 
thens, or heretics (as they sometimes did), then, as the Church 
did altogether discourage such marriages, so it is probable that 
the ministers of the Church never had any hand or concern in 
solemnizing them. But, thirdly, whilst the Roman laws allowed 
such marriages, it was not in the power of the Church to 
reverse or annul them, but only to punish the delinquents by 
her censures. Only in such cases as the laws prohibited, as all 
incestuous marriages, and children’s marrying against the con- 
sent of their parents; which the Roman laws not only pro- 
hibited, but many times annulled ;—I say, in such cases the 
Church could go a little further, being warranted by the laws 
of the state, as well as the laws of God, to declare such mar- 
riages void. 4. Though the Church disapproved of any undue 
manner of marriage that the state forbade ; as marrying with- 
out espousals and instruments of dowry, whilst the civil law 
was against it; yet she did not proceed so far as to declare 
such marriages absolutely no marriages, or utterly null and 
void. Concerning the three last points there are no disputes 
worth mentioning among learned men. But, concerning the 
first point, a great dispute is raised by Mr. Selden*: for he 


a Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. c. xxix. (Wilkins, 1726. vol. ii. p. 694.) (p. 217, 
Francof.) In sanetionibus imperatoriis seu jure Caesareo, non ab antistitibus 
sacris introducto, quod scilicet de re nuptiali habetur in Digestis et utroque 
Codice multiplex, sacri ministerii mentio sane est nulla. In Digestis quidem 
titulus est ‘de Ritu Nuptiarum,’ quem e Paganismo illue traduxit Tribonianus, 
sacra Paganorum nuptialia horumque appendices, jusque de ea re pontificium 
primo innuentem. Sed saera illa, qua sacra, prorsus abolita Christianis. Immo 
Theodosius et Valentinianus Augusti vetucre in basilicis, id est eedibus sacris, 
nuptias cclebrari. Sed id sumi solet pro eo, quod est convivia, tripudia, id 
genus nuptialis hilaritatis alia inibi haberi; non de ipso contractu reliquoque ibi 


παρ. IV. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 333 


will by no means allow that it was the general practice among 
Christians, when they made marriages one with another, to 
have the marriage solemnized by a minister of the Church. 
He owns it was sometimes so done by the choice of the con- 
tracting parties, or their parents inclining to it; but he asserts 
they were under no obligation of law so to do, nor did any 
general custom prevail to give it so much as the title of a 
general practice. But Mr. Selden in this is contradicted by 
eminent men of his own profession. He himself owns?, that 
Dionysius Gothofred and Hotoman are against him in point of 
law: and Jacobus Gothofred, the famous commentator upon 
the Theodosian Code, is against him in point of practice. The 
former Gothofred® and Hotoman® are of opinion, that the 
words ‘vota nuptiarum,’ in one of Justinian’s laws, means the 
celebration of marriage by the clergy. The other Gothofred 


ritu sacro nuptiali, qualem ad aras deorum etiam in Paganismo, velut ex recep- 
tissimo more fieri solitum volunt Stephanus Foreatulus, Alexander Sardus, alii- 
que nonnulli. Et interdum sie factum, pro arbitratu scilicet contrahentium 
communi, quorum essent in potestate, non diffitemur. Sed de jure ejusmodi 
seeculis antiquioribus ita recepto nullibi liquet. Et quod habetur in Theodori 
Prodromi, seriptoris inter Greecos recentioris, Amaranto, de ridiculis Stratoclis 
senis plane capularis et Myrillze puellulze nuptiis; illum nempe, simulac tabulee 
nuptiales confectze erant lectaeque, dixisse, Ti δὲ διαμέλλομεν ἔτι καὶ οὐ πρὺς 
τὸν νεὼν ἄπιμεν ; statimque ad Isidis, velut ex receptissimo more, sponsos 
amicosque ivisse; hoe inquam ex ritu inter Christianos recentiores passim 
admisso, quo templa sponsi adire solent, ibi natum, non ex more aliquo ejus- 
modi apud Paganos veteres, seu qui evi erant illius, cui fabulam suam adfingit 
Theodorus ille, ete. 

b Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. ¢. xxix. (Wilkins, p. 694.) (p. 218, Francof.) 
Justinianus quidem statuit, si nuptiarum tempus in pactum aliquod seu con- 
ditionem venisset, id de ipsa nuptiarum festivitate solum intelligendum, quod 
explicat ipse de tempore, ex quo vota nuptiarum re ipsa processerint. Sunt, 
qui benedictionem heie sacram volunt intelligi ; alii rectius actum qualemeum- 
que, quo nuptice celebratze. 

© Dionys. Gothofred. Not. in Codie. Justin. lib. v. tit. iv. de Nuptiis, leg. xxiv. 
(Amstelod. 1663. p. 150.) Puta sacra benedictio. 

ἃ Hotomann. Quest. Illustr. queest. xxiv. Not. De hae phrasi ‘ vota nuptia- 
rum,’ nihil heie invenio; invenio autem nonnulla, que hue pertinent: ‘ Vetus- 
tissimum Christianorum institutum hoe esse, ut matrimonia palam ecclesize οὐ 
ministrorum precibus conseerentur, facile demonstrari potest: primum ex Ter- 
tulliano, qui lib. ad uxorem ita seribit, ‘Unde sufficiam,’ ete. Alterum testi- 
monium est ex 1. sancimus, xxiv. C. de Nupt.; ubi imperator Justinianus 
statuit, ut ca demum rata sint matrimonia, in quibus nuptiarum accessit 
festivitas,’ ete. 


334 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


thinks the passage hardly express enough to be a full proof of 
the matter: but, then, he is clear against Mr. Selden in point 
of practice. For he says, ‘“‘ The ancient Church in general, 
and the African Church in particular, were ever wont to cele- 
brate marriages by the solemn benediction of the clergy :” and 
he gives very good proofs of his assertion®. His first evidences 
are from Tertullian, who in one place has these remarkable 
words': “‘ How can I sufficiently set forth the happiness of 
that marriage which the Church [makes or] conciliates, and 
the oblation confirms, and the benediction seals, and the angels 
report, and the Father ratifies?” ‘In which words,” Gotho- 
fred says®, “the Church is said to conciliate the marriage, 
because in those times men commonly asked wives of the 
ecclesiastics, and consulted them about their marriage, and 
the profession of marriage was made before them ; and, finally, 
the ecclesiastics gave wives by their benediction.” He adds, 
“That Tertullian, in this place, alludes to the five rites of the 
Gentiles used in their marriages: 1. The ‘ proxenetz,’ or 


© Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. iii. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. i. p. 280.) Sed quid de εὐλογίᾳ seu ἱερολογίᾳ dicemus, quee heic non expri- 
mitur? De Paganico ritu, ubi sacrificium et auspices adhibitos notum est, non 
quero: verum de sacra benedictione in Christianorum nuptiis. Certe enim 
hoe Codice nulla mentio occurrit: neque Theodosius Junior id hae lege requirit: 
neque Valens Imperator, leg. vi. inf. de Tyronibus. Neque etiam ullus est hae 
de re apud Justinianum locus expressus, etsi Jeg. xxiv. cod. hoc. tit. nuptiarum 
festivitas et vota requirantur. Et veterem tamen ecclesiam et in his Africanam 
ea usam colligitur, non ex uno Tertulliani loco. Primus occurrit fine lib. ii. ad 
uxorem: ‘ Unde sufficiam,’ etc. See following note. 

f Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. ii. ¢. ix. (Paris. 1664. p.171, C 6.) Unde sufficiamus 
ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliat, et confirmat 
oblatio, et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant, Pater rato habet. 

& Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. iii. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. i. p. 280.) Quo quidem loco ecclesia matrimonium ‘ conciliare’ dicitur, quia 
ab ecclesiasticis ferme conjuges postulabantur, superque matrimonio hi con- 
sulebantur, apud hos matrimonii professio fiebat: benedictione denique eccle- 
siastici conjuges dabant: et in summam, illo loco Tertullianus alludit ad quinque 
ritus gentilitios, qui in nuptiis interveniebant: conciliatores scilicet seu proxe- 
netas nuptiarum; oblationem osculi et arrarum; obsignationem tabularum; ami- 
corum testiumque fidem et przesentiam; parentis denique consensum, si de 
liberorum nuptiis ageretur. Quibus Tertullianus totidem, que in matrimonio 
Christiano interveniebant, opponit ; conciliationem ecclesize, seu ecclesiastico- 
rum; oblationem precum, obsignationem, que fit benedictione ecclesiasticorum; 
renuntiationem, fidem, testimonium angelorum; ratihabitionem Patris nostri 
ceelestis. 


Caap. IV. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 335 


‘conciliators’ of marriage. 2. The offering of the kiss and 
espousal donations. 3. The obsignation of the instruments. 
4. The testimony and presence of witnesses and friends. 5, 
and lastly, The consent of parents in the marriage of their 
children. To which Tertullian opposes as many things inter- 
vening in a Christian marriage, viz. 1. The conciliation of the 
Chureh or the ecclesiastics. 2. The oblation of prayers (1 
add, perhaps, also the oblation of the eucharist, which com- 
monly went together). 3. The obligation made by the bene- 
diction of the ecclesiastics. 4. The renunciation, faith, and 
testimony of the angels. And, 5. The ratihabition or con- 
firmation of our Father who is in heaven.” A second passage, 
alleged by Gothofred out of Tertullian, is where he speaks of 
clandestine marriages, saying, ‘‘ Among us secret marriages, 
that is, such as are not publicly professed before the Church, 
are in danger of being condemned as fornication and adultery.” 
And in another place, speaking of second marriages, and dis- 
suading all persons from them, he says', ‘“ How canst thou ask 
such a marriage of those who cannot themselves have what 
thou askest of them? For the bishop, the presbyters, and the 
deacons, and the widows of the Church, whose society thou 
rejectest, are all monogamists, or but once married. Yet they 
will give husbands and wives as they do morsels ; that is, to 
every one that asks, and join you together in the Virgin 
Church, the only spouse of one Christ.” Mr. Selden’ excepts 


h Tertul. de Pudicitia, c. iv. (Paris. 1664. p. 557, B 7.) Penes nos oceultze 
quoque conjunctiones, id est, non prius apud ecclesiam professze, juxta moe- 
chiam et fornicationem judicari periclitantur. Nec inde consertz obtentu 
matrimonii crimen eludant. 

i Tertul. de Monogamia, c. xi. (Paris. 1664. p. 531, C 5.) Ut igitur in Domino 
nubas secundum legem et apostolum (si tamen vel hoc curas), qualis es id 
matrimonium postulans, quod eis, a quibus postulans, non licet habere ; ab 
episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, a viduis, 
quarum sectam in te recusasti? Et illi plane sie dabunt viros et uxores, quo- 
modo buccellas. Hoe enim est apud illos, Omni petenti dabis. Et conjungent 
vos in ecclesia virgine, unius Christi unica sponsa. 

i Selden. ad hune Tertul. locum, lib. ii. 6. xxviii. (p. 211. edit. Francof. 1673.) 
Dabant episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, viduze maritos; qui ab ipsis petebantur. 
Sed neque ad ipsum nuptialem contractum necessariamve ejus celebrationem 
a ministro sacro peragendam, aut ad ipsam simplicem benedictionem solennem, 
hee attinent. Ita enim pariter et ad viduas spectaret simile officium. 


336 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


against this passage, as making the widows have the same 
concern in the marriage as the ministers: but that is a plain 
mistake, for the widows might be concerned in giving their 
consent and approbation, which Tertullian calls “the conci- 
ation of marriage ;” but the ministers were concerned further 
in giving the benediction also. This benediction is spoken of 
likewise by St. Ambrose, as the custom of the Italic Churches 
in his time: for, says he*, ““ When marriage ought to be sanc- 
tified by the sacerdotal veil and benediction, how can that be 
ealled a marriage, where there is no agreement in the faith?” 
Gothofred thinks also that the same custom may be deduced 
out of those words of Ignatius!: ‘* It becomes both men and 
women, when they marry, to make the union μετὰ γνώμης 
τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ‘ with the will and direction of the bishop,’ that 
the marriage may be according to the Lord, and not merely 
according to the instigation of their own lusts.” And further, 
from what Gregory Nazianzen says of the marriage of Olym- 
pias™, ‘That a great number of bishops were present at the 
solemnity, and that he himself was present in heart and will, 
celebrating the festival, and joiming the right hands of the 
young couple together, and both of them to the hand of God :” 
where joining of them to the hand of God is plainly but an- 
other expression for the benediction. This is further evident 
from the fourth Council of Carthage, which orders", ‘“ That 
both the man and the woman that are to be blessed by the 
priest should be presented by their parents, or by their ‘ para- 
nymphi,’ ‘ bridemen,’ who stood in the stead of their parents.” 


k Ambros. Ep. Ixx. (Bened. Paris. 1686. vol. ii. p. 844, A 10.) Quum ipsum 
conjugium velamine sacerdotali, et benedictione sanctificari oporteat, quomodo 
potest conjugium dici, ubi non est fidei concordia ? 

! Tgnat. Epist. ad Polycarp. (Jacobson, Oxon. 1838. vol. ii. p. 440.) Πρέπει 
δὲ τοῖς γαμοῦσι, καὶ ταῖς γαμουμέναις, μετὰ γνώμης τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τὴν 
ἕνωσιν ποιεῖσθαι, ἵνα ὁ γάμος ἢ κατὰ Θεὸν, καὶ μὴ κατ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν. 

m Nazianz. Ep. lvii. (Bened. 1842. vol. ii. p. 159, D 2.) Καὶ παρῆν ἐπισκό- 
πων ὕμιλος ἐπεὶ τῷ ye βούλεσθαι καὶ πάρειμι, καὶ συνεορτάζω, καὶ THY 
νεῶν τὰς δεξιὰς ἀλλήλας τε ἐμβάλλω καὶ ἀμφοτέρας τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

n Cone. Carth. LV. ὁ. xiii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1201.) Sponsus et sponsa, quum 
benedicendi sunt a sacerdote, a parentibus suis vel paranymphis offerantur. 
Qui quum benedictionem acceperint, eadem nocte, pro reverentia ipsius bene- 
dictionis, in virginitate permaneant. 


Cuar. IV. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 337 
Thus far the evidences produced by Gothofred. To which we 
add that of St. Austin, who lived at the time of the Council of 
Oarthage, where he tells us°, ‘It was in the bishops’ power 
absolutely to give women in marriage, but they could not give 
them to men that were heathens.” The benediction is not 
here expressly mentioned; but, considering the whole affair 
was in the bishop’s power, the benediction may easily be infer- 
red from it. And Possidius, in his Life, makes express men- 
tion of it: for he says?, ‘It was St. Austin’s opinion, which 
he learned from the Institutes of St. Ambrose, ‘ That a priest, 
indeed, ought not to be a solicitor of marriage in making 
matches between men and women: but when they themselves 
had agreed upon the matter, then, at their joint request, he 
ought to be present, either to confirm their agreement, or give 
it the benediction.’” In like manner St. Chrysostom, inveigh- 
ing against the lascivious and diabolical pomps which some 
used at their marriages, he says‘, ‘“‘ They ought rather to teach 
the virgin modesty in the entrance upon marriage, and to call 
for the priest, and by prayer and benediction tie the knot of 
unity in marriage; that the husband’s love might increase, 
and the wife’s chastity might be improved ; that the works of 


© Aug. Ep. eexxxiv. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 668, F 2.) Certissime noveris, 
etiamsi nostra [meze et aliorum episcoporum] absolute sit potestatis, quamlibet 
puellam in conjugium tradere, tradi a nobis Christianam nisi Christiano non 
posse. 

P Possid. Vit. Aug. ¢. xxvii. (ibid. vol. x. Append. p. 185.) Servandum quo- 
que in vita et moribus hominis Dei referebat, quod in instituto sanctee memo- 
riee Ambrosii compererat, ut uxorem cuiquam numquam posceret ...ne dum 
inter se conjugati casu jurgarent, et ei maledicerent per quem conjuncti essent : 
sed plane ad hoe sibi jam illis consentientibus petitum interesse debere [ad- 
firmabat] sacerdotem, ut vel eorum jam pacta et placita firmarentur, vel bene- 
dicerentur. 

4 Chrysostom. Hom. xlviii. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 490, E 8.) Τί 
τὰ σεμνὰ τοῦ γάμου ἐκπομπεύεις μυστήρια ; δέον ἅπαντα ταῦτα ἀπελαύνειν, 
καὶ τὴν αἰδὼ ἐκ προοιμίων ἐκπαιδεύειν τὴν κόρην, καὶ ἱερέας καλεῖν, καὶ OV 
εὐχῶν καὶ εὐλογιῶν τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τοῦ συνοικεσίου συσφίγγειν, ἵνα καὶ ὁ 
πόθος τοῦ νυμφίου αὔξηται, καὶ τῆς κόρης ἡ σωφροσύνη ἐπιτείνηται, καὶ διὰ 
πάντων τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔργα εἰσελεύσηται εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ἐκείνην, καὶ πᾶσαι 
τοῦ διαβόλου αἱ μηχαναὶ ἐκποδὼν ἔσωνται, καὶ αὐτοὶ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς τὸν βίον 
διάζωσιν. Agreeably to this, St. Basil calls marriage the bond or yoke that 
men take upon them by benediction, ὁ διὰ τῆς εὐλογίας ζυγός. (Hom. vii. in 
Hexaémer.) (Bened. 1721. vol. i. p. 68.) 

VOL. VII. Z 


338 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


virtue might enter into the house by all that was then done, 
and the wiles and works of the devil be cast out.” This is a 
plain account of what that Father desired; and what was 
practised by the better sort of Christians in such solemnities. 
Siricius, bishop of Rome, lived about the same time with St. 
Chrysostom and St. Austin: and he particularly mentions the 
benediction of the priest, as used in marriage, giving it as a 
reason’ why a woman that is espoused to a man, ought not to 
be married to any other; because, among Christians, it was 
reckoned a sort of sacrilege to violate the benediction which 
was given by the priest to a woman upon her espousal. And 
after him Pope Hormisdas, who lived about the year 520, a 
little before the time of Justinian, made a decree’, “ That no 
one should make a clandestine marriage, but, receiving the 
benediction of the priest, should marry publicly in the Lord.” 
These evidences are abundantly sufficient to show, what was 
the general practice of Christians in this matter from the very 
first ages. 


Secr. 11.—Jn what Cases it might happen to be otherwise. 


And as to any exceptions that may be alleged against such 
a universal practice, they are of little moment. Some mar- 
riages, indeed, notwithstanding all the care and advice of the 
Church, were made between Christians and heathens: and in 
that case the ministers of the Church could have no hand in 
the marriage, nor give any benediction to it, because it was 
directly contrary to the rules of the Church that any Christian 
should marry a heathen. Again, some canons discouraged, 
though they did not absolutely forbid, second and third mar- 
riages after the death of a first wife or husband, and forbid any 
presbyter to be present at them. The Council of Neocesarea 
has a canon to this purpose‘: “ No presbyter shall be present 


r Siric. See note (k), p. 326. 

5. Hormisd. Decret. ¢. vi. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1556, D.) Nullus fidelis, eujus- 
cumque conditionis sit, occulte nuptias faciat ; sed benedictione accepta a sacer- 
dote, publice nubat in Domino. 

Ὁ Cone. Neocwesar. 6. vii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1481.) Πρεσβύτερον εἰς γάμους 
διγαμούντων μὴ ἑστιᾶσθαι: ἐπεὶ μετάνοιαν αἰτοῦντος τοῦ διγάμου, τίς ἔσται 


ὁ πρεσβύτερος, ὁ διὰ τῆς ἑστιάσεως συγκατατιθέμενος τοῖς γάμοις; 


Crap. IV. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 339 


at the marriage-feast of those that marry twice: for a digamist 
requires penance. How then shall a presbyter, by his pre- 
sence at such feasts, give consent to such marriages?” And if 
he might give no consent to them by his presence, much less 
might he authorize them by his solemn benediction. Peter 
Martyr", and the Gloss upon Gratian*, understand this canon 
as forbidding the clergy to have any concern in the marriage 
of proper polygamists, or such as married a second wife whilst 
the first was living: which is no more than all the clergy are 
prohibited at this day ; for polygamy may not now be autho- 
rized by sacerdotal benediction. But if we take the canon in 
the common sense of marrying a second wife after the first was 
dead, and suppose the clergy forbidden to give the benediction 
to such marriages: yet this was but a canon of a particular 
council, which never much prevailed. For we are sure, in 
fact, that second marriages had, generally, sacerdotal benedic- 
tion, as well as the first : and, therefore, whatever might hap- 
pen upon the strength of that canon, could be no great excep- 
tion to the general practice. But that which gave the greatest 
liberty to marry without sacerdotal benediction, was the allow- 
ance which the laws of the empire granted to other ways of 
marrying, besides that of solemnizing marriage by the benedic- 
tion of the clergy. For though this had no great effect for 
the first three hundred years, whilst the laws continued heathen 
(for then the generality of Christians were no more disposed to 
marry without the benediction of the bishop, or some of the 
clergy, than they were inclined to end their civil controversies 
any other ways than by the bishop’s arbitration and decision) : 
yet afterwards, when the laws became Christian, and no imme- 
diate provision was made to oblige men universally to solem- 


u Petr. Mart. Loc. Com. lib. ii. ¢. x. (Lond. 1582. p. 277.) (p. 557, Basil. 
1630.) Canonem Concilii Neocsariensis, quo prohibentur ministri ecclesize vel 
interesse vel benedicere secundis nuptiis, ego de istis [novis nuptiis in divortiis] 
accipio, non de illis, que repetuntur altero conjugum defuncto. 

x Gratian. Caus. xxxi. queest. i. ¢. viii. (Corp. Jur. Can. Pithoeus, p. 379.) De 
his qui frequenter uxores ducunt, et de his qui seepius nubunt, tempus quidem 
penitentize his manifestum constitutum est; sed conversatio et fides eorum 
tempus abbreviat. Presbyterum vero convivio secundarum nuptiarum inter- 
esse non debere ; maxime quum preecipiatur secundis nuptiis peenitentiam tri- 
buere: quis erit presbyter, qui propter convivium illis consentiat nuptiis ? 

Ths 


340 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIT. 


nize marriage by the benediction of the clergy; but other 
ways were still allowed as sufficient to make a marriage good 
in law without it; men began to fall off from the ancient 
practice, some for one reason and some for another, till by 
degrees the primitive way of marrying among Christians came 
to be much dishonoured and neglected. 


Srecr. Il1].—AHow the Primitive Practice was revived, when i 
came to be neglected. 


This made some of the more zealous emperors, who, about 
the eighth and ninth centuries, were a little inclined to correct 
and reform some abuses, which the corruption of the times 
had brought in upon the discipline of the Church, to look upon 
this neglect of marrying without sacerdotal benediction as an 
abuse among the rest, and a deviation from the more ancient 
laudable practice. Hereupon they set themselves to revive 
the primitive custom, and make some more effectual provision 
than had hitherto been done, by more express and general laws 
to establish and confirm it. Charles the Great enacted a law 
in the West, about the year 780, wherein he ordered, “ That 
no marriage should be celebrated any other ways but by bless- 
ing, with sacerdotal prayers and oblations ; and whatever mar- 
riages were performed otherwise, should not be accounted true 
marriages, but adultery, concubinage, or fornication.” And, 
about the year 900, Leo Sapiens”, in the Eastern empire, re- 
vived the same ancient practice, which ever since continued to 
be the practice of the Church. Mr. Selden* and Gothofred "ἢ 


y Carol. Capitular. lib. vii. 6. eeclxiii. Aliter legitimum non sit conjugium 
...nisi sponsa sua suo tempore sacerdotaliter cum precibus et oblationibus a 
sacerdote benedicatur, etc. 

z Leo, Novell. Ixxxix. See following note. 

a Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. 6. xxix. (Wilkins, 1726. vol. ii. p. 696.) (p. 221, 
Francof. 1673.) Leo sanctionem edidit, cujus titulus περὶ τοῦ τὰ συνοικέσια 
ἄνευ τῆς ἱερᾶς εὐλογίας μὴ ἐῤῥῶσθαι: ubi inquit, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τέκνων 
εἰσποιήσεως ἱεραῖς ἐπικλήσεσι τὴν εἰσποίησιν προβαίνειν διορισάμεθα, οὕτω 
καὶ τὰ συνοικέσια τῇ μαρτυρίᾳ τῆς ἱερᾶς εὐλογίας ἐῤῥῶσθαι κελεύομεν. 
Neque aliter jure matrimonii, sive in societate vitee, sive in prole quemquam 
gavisurum. In hane rem, ejusdem memorat constitutionem Harmenopulus, uti 
et aliam Alexii Comneni, ducentis aut circiter annis postea Orientis Augusti. 
Sie item Joannes episcopus Citriensis, alii. Atque Leonina heee vim juris 


5 


Cuap. IV. ὃ ὃ. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 341 


both agree in this, that now the necessity of sacerdotal bene- 
diction was established by law; but they differ in one point, 
that Mr. Selden supposes this was the first beginning of the 
general practice of making marriages by sacerdotal benedic- 
tion; whereas Gothofred thinks it was only a reviving of a 
former ancient general practice, which for some ages had been 
much neglected. And that the truth hes on Gothofred’s side, 
the reader, from what has been said, will be able very easily 
to determine. 


postea obtinuit, ut pauce aliquot ejusdem alie, nee plures. Atque unde in 
Oriente jus in matrimoniis celebrandis sacerdotale, quatenus jus intuemur 
Czesareum, ortum habuerit, et quamdiu sine sacris rata satis ibi haberentur 
conjugia, ex jam indicatis satis constat. Quod ad occidentem attinet; ex 
epistole illius Evaristi Papze verbis, saltem Evaristo tributis, in Capitula 
Caroli et Ludovici Czesarum relatis ibique vim legis obtinentibus, videtur sane 
non solum benedictionis sacrze usus, adeoque ipsa contrahendi formula in ccetu 
sacro, preeeunte sacro ministro, inolevisse, sed et matrimonium ipsum inde 
tantum pro legitimo habitum esse. Id evenit sub annum Christum 820. Et 
paullo post exemplum occurrit illustre benedictionis nuptialis, velut in morem 
receptee, quum conjungebantur Ethelwolfus Anglorum rex, et Juditha Caroli 
Calvi filia. Alibi autem iidem imperatores, ut publicze fierent nuptice, statuere, 
ubi nihil de benedictione sacra. Etiam in legibus Wisigothorum, hisce anti- 
quioribus, expressa in connubiis mentio permissus comitis, dotis constitutionis 
tabularumque dotalium, ut que testimonii publici vicem obtinerent, ubi nihil 
omnino de benedictione sacra aut sacro ministro. Quod et de aliis legibus 
yeterum dicendum, que in re nuptiali sub illud zevum adeo diversee, ut Francus, 
verbi gratia, qui Saxonicam jure Saxonico duxisset, eam non uxorem legitimam, 
censeret, quia non ducta jure seu ritu Francico, renitente interim Concilio 
Triburiensi. Quod autem de benedictione sacra sic in imperium Occidentale 
est receptum, in alia regna Christiana, quze vicina fuere, aliter atque aliter post- 
modum diffusum est, ete. 

b Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. vii. de Nuptiis, leg. iii, p. 261. Ex 
his locis omnibus [see before-cited notes (h), (n),] patet, professionem nuptia- 
rum, apud episcopos et presbyteros factam, intervenisse adeo in nuptiis eccle- 
siasticas personas, benedictionesque proinde ritum in nuptiis apud veteres 
Christianos usurpatum: nondum tamen sub facie ecclesize totius, verum domi. 
Immo et hee ipsa benedictio postea neglecta, quam ideo revexit, nuptiasque 
adeo huie benedictioni przecise subjecit in Oriente, Leo Imper. novella Ixxxix. 
Περὶ τοῦ τὰ συνοικέσια ἄνευ τῆς ἱερᾶς εὐλογίας μὴ ἐῤῥῶσθαι : (Ejusdemque 
idem meminit Novella Ixxiv.) Περὶ τοῦ μὴ τελεῖσθαι τὰς εὐλογίας, πρὶν ἂν 
ὁ νόμιμος τοῦ γάμου συμφθάσῃ καιρὸς, et Novella Alexii Comneni. See also 
the Scholiast οἵ Harmenopulus, lib. iv. tit. iv. 


919 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


Sect. 1V.—Other Ceremonies used in Marriage, as Joining of 
Hands and Veiling. 


Having thus resolved the main question, concerning sacer- 
dotal benediction, I now go on with the lesser ceremonies used 
in marriage : among which we find the ancient rite of joining 
the right hands of the espousing parties together. For so we 
have heard Gregory Nazianzen © already representing the mar- 
riage of Olympias, that it was done by joining the right hands 
of the young couple together, and both their hands to the 
hand of God. St. Ambrose also takes notice of the custom of 
veiling, as a ceremony used in marriage, when he says“, “‘ The 
Christian marriage ought to be sanctified with the sacerdotal 
veil and benediction.” Tertullian also mentions the custom of 
veiling *, as used by the heathens, which he commends, toge- 
ther with the ceremony of the solemn kiss and joining of 
hands. But these he speaks of rather as ceremonies used in 
espousals before marriage: though we may suppose them to 
be used in both, since the Latin name of ‘ marriage,’ ‘ nuptize,” 
is observed by the Roman antiquaries‘ to have its name from 
‘obnubere,’ which signifies ‘ to veil, or cover.’ 


Sect. V.—Untying the Woman's Hair. 
Jun 


Optatus seems to allude to another ceremony, which I have 
not yet found expressly mentioned in any other author: that 
is, the woman’s loosing or untying her hair in the solemnity 
of marriage. For, writing against the Donatists, who had 
reconsecrated the Catholic virgins, who before had espoused 
themselves to Christ, he says 8, ‘Those virgins, to show that 


© Nazianz. Ep. lvii. See sect. i, note (m), p. 336. 

4 Ambros. Ep. Ixx. See ch. iv. sect. i. note (k), p. 336. 

© Tertul. de Veland. Virgin. ec. xi. (Paris. 1664. p. 179, Ὁ 3.) Atquin etiam 
apud ethnicos velatee ad virum ducuntur. Si autem ad desponsationem velantur, 
quia et corpore et spiritu masculo mixtze sunt per osculum et dexteras, ete. 

f Rosin. Antiquit. Roman. lib. v. c. xxxvii. (p. 959.) Velo obnubi solebat, 
quum ad virum duceretur. . . . Unde nuptiarum nomen ductum est. Nubere 
enim et obnubere, priscis velare et operire significabat, ut Festus Pompeius non 
uno loco, Nonius Marcellus et alii complures notant. 

& Optat. de Schis. Donat. lib. vi. (Paris. 1702. p. 95.) Ut seecularibus nuptiis 
se renuntiasse monstrarent, et junctas spiritali sponso, solverant crinem, jam 


Cuar. IV. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 343 
they had renounced all secular marriage, had untied their hair 
to a spiritual husband, they had already celebrated a celestial 
marriage. Why, therefore, did ye compel them to untie the 
hair again?” ‘This seems to allude to some such custom in 
secular marriage: because he adds?, ““ That when women mar- 
ried a second time in the world, this was not used.” Which 
implies, that it was used the first time, though omitted in 
second marriages, as many other ceremonies of temporal fes- 
tivity were, viz. gay dressing, and crowning, and what naturally 
followed them, the great concourse and acclamations of the 
people. But if any one thinks this was not an allusion to any 
ceremony used in secular marriages, but rather a ceremony 
actually used in spiritual marriages of virgins to Christ ; be- 
cause St. Jerome: speaks of their cutting off their hair in 
some places, when they renounced the world, and devoted 
themselves to Christ ; I will not stand to contend about a 
matter both small and obscure, but go on.to that which is 
more certain in secular marriages, which is our present 
subject. 


Secr. VI.—Crowning the New-married Couple with Crowns 
or Garlands. 


When the sacred office of benediction was over, and the 
married persons were ready to depart, it was usual to crown 
the bridegroom and bride with crowns or garlands, the sym- 
bols of victory: for now it was supposed they had hitherto 
striven virtuously against all manner of uncleanness, and there- 
fore were crowned as conquerors in their marriage. St. Chry- 
sostom mentions the ceremony, and gives this account of it *: 


coelestes celebraverant nuptias. Quid est quod eas iterum crines solvere 
coégistis ἢ 

h [bid. Hoe nec mulieres patiuntur, quee carnaliter nubunt. 

i Hieron. Epist. xlviii. ad Sabinian. e. iii. (Venet. 1766. Bened. vol. i. p. 1089, 
C 6.) Moris est in AZgypti et Syrize monasteriis, ut tam virgo, quam vidua, 
que se Deo voverint, et seeculo renunciantes, omnes delicias sieculi conculea- 
rint, crinem monasteriorum matribus offerant desecandum, non intecto postea 
contra apostoli voluntatem incessurie capite ; sed ligato pariter ac velato. 

k Chrysostom. Hom. ix. in 1 Tim. (Bened. vol. xi. p. 597, B 5.) Διὰ τοῦτο 
στέφανοι ταῖς κεφαλαῖς ἐπιτίθενται, σύμβολον τῆς νίκης; ὅτι ἀήττητοι 
γενόμενοι, οὕτω προσέρχονται τῇ εὐνῇ, OTL μὴ κατηγωνίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῆς 


944. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


“Crowns are therefore put upon their heads, as symbols of 
victory, because, being invincible, they entered the bride- 
chamber without ever having been subdued by any unlawful 
pleasure.” So that this ceremony was used as a mark of 
honour and note of distinction to reward their virtue, and put 
a difference between them and such as had before addicted 
themselves to fornication and uncleanness. “ For to what 
purpose,” says Chrysostom again, ‘“‘should he wear a crown 
upon his head, who had given himself up to harlots, and been 
subdued by pleasure?” Which seems to imply, that forni- 
cators were denied this honour when they came to marry: that 
being a part of their punishment, among other acts of disci- 
pline in the Church. And upon the same account this cere- 
mony was seldom or never used in second and third marriages; 
because, though they were not absolutely condemned as un- 
lawful, yet they were not reckoned so honourable as the first. 
As to the ceremony in general, Mr. Selden says}, “ It is 
mentioned by Gregory Nyssen, and Basil of Seleucia, and 
Palladius.” And it is more than once noted by Sidonius 
Apollinaris; who, speaking of the marriage of Ricimer, and 
describing the pomp of it, says™, ‘“‘ Now the virgin was deli- 
vered into his hands, now the bridegroom was honoured with 
his crown.” And, again, in his panegyric to Anthemius the 
emperor, speaking of the same marriage of Ricimer, who mar- 
ried the emperor’s daughter, he says to Ricimer, in the poeti- 
cal strain”, “‘ This marriage was procured by your valour, and 
the laurel-crown gave you the crown of myrtle :” alluding to 
the different customs of crowning warriors with laurel, and 
bridegrooms with myrtle. This was, indeed, an old ceremony 
ἡδονῆς" εἰ δὲ ἁλοὺς ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς πόρναις ἑαυτὸν ἐκδῷ, τίνος ἕνεκεν 
λοιπὸν καὶ στέφανον ἔχει [ἐπὶ] τῆς κεφαλῆς, ἡττημένος 5 

1 Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. ii. 6. xxiv. (Wilkins, 1726. vol. ii. p- 662.) (p. 174, 
Francof. 1673.) De corona Orientalium nuptiali ex Gregorio N ysseno, Basilio 
Seleuciensi, Palladii Historia Lausiaca, alia notarunt pridem viri docti, Paulus 
Sherlogus in Cantic. Vestigat. xxvii. sect. xvi. ete. 

™ Sidon. (Paris. 1614.) lib. i. Ep. y. p. 12. Jam quidem virgo tradita est, 
jam corona sponsus honoratur. 

2 Ibid. Carm. ii. ad Anthem. vers. 503, p. 292. 


Hos thalamos, Recimer, virtus tibi pronuba poscit, 
Atque Dionzeam dat Martia laurea myrtum. 


Cuap. IV. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 345 


used in heathen marriages; as we learn from Tertullian, who 
reckons it an idolatrous rite, as used by them: and, therefore, 
says°, “Christians did not marry with heathens, lest they 
should draw them to idolatry, from which their marriages took 
their beginning.” But the ceremony was innocent in its own 
nature: and therefore the Christians never made any scruple 
to adopt it into the rites of marriage which they made among 
themselves, because it was a significant ceremony, declaring 
the innocency of the parties joined together: for which it is 
still retained among the Greeks, as we learn from Nicetas, 
bishop of Heraclea?, a modern Greek writer, and Metrophanes 
Critopulus 4, and Dr. Smith", in his Account of the Greek 
Church. It is also spoken of with approbation by Peter 
Martyr , and other Protestant writers, who commend it as a 
laudable ceremony, for the reason given by St. Chrysostom : 


© Tertul. de Coron. Milit. c. xiii. (Paris. 1664. p. 109, A 10.) Coronant et 
nuptize sponsos: ideo non nubamus ethnicis, ne nos ad idololatriam usque 
deducant, a qua apud iJlos nuptize incipiunt. 

P Nicet. Respons. ap. Leunclavium, Jur. Greece. Rom. (tom. i. p. 310.) Ἧ μὲν 
ἀκρίβεια τοὺς διγάμους οὐκ οἷδε στεφανοῦν" ἡ δὲ ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ 
συνήθεια τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐ παρατηρεῖται' ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς διγάμοις τοὺς νυμφι- 
Kode στεφάνους ἐπιτίθησι, κ. τ. X. 

4 Critopul. Confess. Fid. ¢. xii. Εἶτ᾽ ἀλλήλων τὰς δεξιὰς συνάψας, ἐπι- 
τίθησι ταῖς ἐκείνων κεφαλαῖς στεφάνους ἐξ ἀειθαλοῦς φυτοῦ. 

r Smith’s Account, &c. (Lond. 1680. p. 189.) Be the persons of what quality 
or condition soever, crowns or garlands, made, for the most part, of olive- 
branches, stitched over with white silk, and interwoven with purple, are a 
necessary and essential part of the nuptial solemnity (hence στεφάνωμα is 
oftentimes used for ‘marriage,’ and στεφανοῦσθαι and γαμεῖσθαι signify the 
same thing), they being the symbols, not to say the complement, of this mystical - 
rite. The priest, covering the head of the bridegroom with one of these gar- 
lands, says, Στέφεται δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ δεῖνα τὴν δούλην τοῦ Θεοῦ τήνδε, 
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου IUvetparoc. Then he 
crowns the head of the bride with the other garland, repeating the same words, 
with their due alterations; and then, putting their hands across, he blesses 
them in this form thrice: Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, δόξῃ, καὶ τιμῇ στεφάνωσον 
αὐτούς. 

s Petr. Martyr. Loc. Commun, lib. ii. 6. x. sect. xxii. (tom. i. Opp. p. 521, e. 
Basil. 1580.) Obiter annotabo, quid eo loco de nuptialibus coronis tradat : 
(Chrysostomus, Hom. ix. in 1 Tim.) Nam etiam tum coronis utebantur in 
nuptiis, ‘Quid,’ inquit, ‘vult corona? ut ostendant se conjuges, usque ad id 
tempus victores fuisse cupiditatum: quod si fuisti adulter aut scortator, quo- 
modo coronam gestas?’ See note (k), p. 343. 


34G THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


and it is still retained among the Helvetians, as Mr. Werndly 
informs us, in his Notes upon the Tigurine Liturgy*. But I 
return to the ancient Church. 


Secr. VII.—Carrying the Bride Home to the Bridegroom’s 
House ; how far necessary in some Cases of Law. 


There was one custom more, which is not to be reckoned so 
much among the religious ceremonies, as to be put into the 
account of the pomp that attended marriage ; and I should 
not have mentioned it in this place, but that it was required 
as necessary in some cases of law: that is, the custom of the 
woman’s being carried by the husband home to his own house : 
whence the phrase ‘ducere uxorem’ is so commonly used on 
the man’s part for ‘ marrying a wife ;” as ‘nubere’ is proper on 
the woman’s part for ‘being married,’ on account of the veil- 
ing used in marriage, as has been noted before. But I men- 
tion it not barely upon this account, but because, in some 
cases, it was a condition precisely required in law, before a 
man could lay claim to some privileges belonging to marriage : 
as appears from one of the laws of the Emperor Valens ", con- 
cerning the ‘tirones, or ‘soldiers newly listed into military 
service.” To encourage the speedier recruiting of the army, 
Valens made a law, that every new soldier, from the time of 
his listing, or taking the military oath, should be free from the 
capitation-tax : and not only so, but if he served faithfully five 
years, his wife also should be free from the same tax, provided 
that after he had married her, he brought her to his own 
house, and did not leave her in her former habitation; for if 
he did so, she could not be proved to be his wife, and there- 


Ὁ Werndly’s Liturgia Tigurina. The bride, during the solemnization of the 
marriage, weareth a chaplet or garland pleted of majoran, rosemary, and other 
choice herbs, ἅς. &e. (London, 1693. p. 152.) 

ἃ Cod. Theod, lib. vii. tit. xiii. de Tironibus, leg. vi. (Lugd. 1665. vol. ii. 
p. 376.) Si oblatus junior fuerit, qui censibus tenetur insertus, ex co tempore, 
quo militize sacramenta susceperit, proprii census caput excuset, ac si quin- 
quennii tempus fida obsequii devotione compleverit, uxoriam quoque capita- 
tionem merito laborum preestet immunem: ea scilicet servanda ratione, ut quam 
sibi uxorem copulaverat adfectu, et in priore lare derelictam memorarit, in 
probata census sarcina sustineat. 


Cuar. IV. ὃ 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 347 


fore should be kept with the burden of the tax upon her.— 
Justinian made a law of the same nature for other cases * : 
“That if any one made a bargain to give or to do any thing 
upon marriage, whether he called it the time of marriage, or 
named it marriage itself; the condition should not be inter- 
preted to be fulfilled, till the festivity of marriage” (which 
comprehended this ceremony of carrying the wife to the house 
of the husband) ‘“‘ was completed.” So that it was necessary 
in these cases, for certain ends and purposes, though otherwise 
the marriage was sufficiently perfected without it. Yet it 
being an ancient custom, the pomp of the marriage was deemed 
imperfect, till this ceremony was used: as we may gather from 
that of Sidonius, where he says’, ‘“‘ The pomp of the marriage 
was not yet fully completed, because the new bride was not 
yet removed to the house of her husband.” 


Secr. VIIIl.—AHow far the Marriage-Pomp was allowed or 
disallowed, by the Ancient Fathers. 


This was an innocent part of marriage-pomp, which was 
often attended with the concourse and acclamations of the 
people. Neither was it reckoned any harm to have a decent 
‘epithalamium,’ or ‘modest nuptial song,’ or a feast of joy 
suitable to the occasion. But the ‘ fescennina,’ or immodest 
ribaldry, that was sometimes used under the notion of the 
marriage-pomp, and the scurrility and obscenity of actors and 
mimics fetched from the stage, together with the excessive 
revellings and dancings, that some called innocent nuptial 
mirth and diversion, were looked upon as great abuses; and 
accordingly proscribed and condemned by some canons, and 
severely inveighed against by the Fathers, as things utterly 
unbecoming the modesty and gravity of Christian marriages. 


* Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. iv. de Nuptiis, leg. xxiv. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 150.) 
Si quis nuptiarum fecerit mentionem in qualicunque pacto, quod ad dandum vel 
ad faciendum ... concipitur, et sive nuptiarum tempus dixerit, sive nuptias 
nominayerit ; non aliter intelligi conditionem esse adimplendam, ... nisi ipsa 
nuptiarum festivitas accedat. 

y Sidon, lib. i. ep. v. (Paris. 1609. p. 29.) Nondum cuncta thalamorum pompa 
defremuit, quia necdum ad mariti domum nova nupta migravit. 


3 


348 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


The Council of Laodicea says’, “ Christians ought not, at mar- 
riages, βαλλίζειν ἢ ὀρχεῖσθαι, to use wanton balls or dancings, 
but dine or sup gravely, as becomes Christians.” Some, by 
the word βαλλίζειν, understand ‘playing on cymbals, and 
dancing to them.’ So Suidas* and Zonaras? interpret it. But 
the word denotes something more, viz. ‘tossing the hands in a 
wanton and lascivious manner :’ and in that sense there might 
be good reason to forbid it: whereas bare music and dancing, 
without any immodest or antic tricks, seems hardly a crime 
worthy a canon to forbid it. And if we may judge by Chry-_ 
sostom’s sharp invective against this and other extravagancies 
committed at marriage-feasts, there must be something more 
extraordinary in them. For, speaking of Isaac’s marriage 
with Rebecca, “Consider here,” says he*, ‘how there was no 
Satanical pomp; no cymbals, and piping, and dancing; no 
Satanical feasting; no scurrilous buffoonery or filthy dis- 
course ; but all was gravity, wisdom, and modesty. Let hus- 
bands and wives now imitate these. For why should a hus- 
band, from the very first, suffer the ears of his young spouse to 
be filled with filth from lascivious and obscene songs, and such 
unseasonable pomp? Know you not that youth of itself is 


% Cone. Laodie. ὁ. hii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 1505.) Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ Χριστιανοὺς εἰς 
γάμους ἀπερχομένους βαλλίζειν ἢ ὀρχεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ σεμνῶς δειπνεῖν ἢ 
ἀριστᾷν, ὡς πρέπει Χριστιανοῖς. 

@ Suicer. voce βαλλίζειν. Βαλλίζειν, τὸ κύμβαλα κτυπεῖν, καὶ πρὸς 
ἐκείνων ἦχον ὀρχεῖσθαι. (Amstelod. 1682. p. 620.) 

> Zonar. in ὁ. liii, Laodie. (Bevereg. Pand. vol. i. p. 478.) Βαλλίζειν ἐστὶ 
τὸ κύμβαλα κτυπεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἐκείνων ἦχον ὀρχεῖσθαι. 

¢ Chrysostom. Hom. xlviii. in Genes. (Bened. 1718. vol. iv. p. 490, Ὁ 3.) 
᾿Ενταῦθα σκόπει μοι, ἀγαπητὲ, πῶς... οὐδαμοῦ πομπὴ διαβολικὴ, οὐδαμοῦ 
κύμβαλα καὶ αὐλοὶ καὶ χορεῖαι, καὶ τὰ Σατανικὰ ἐκεῖνα συμπόσια, καὶ αἱ 
λοιδορίαι, αἱ πάσης ἀσχημοσύνης γέμουσαι, ἀλλὰ πᾶσα σεμνότης, πᾶσα 
σοφία, πᾶσα ἐπιείκεια. Εἰσῆλθε δέ, φησιν, ᾿Ισαὰκ εἰς τὸν οἶκον τῆς μητρὸς 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλαβε τὴν Ῥεβέκκαν, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῷ γυνὴ, καὶ ἠγάπησεν 
αὐτὴν, καὶ παρεκλήθη ᾿Ισαὰκ περὶ Σάῤῥας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ταύτην 
μιμείσθωσαν αἱ γυναῖκες: τοῦτον ζηλούτωσαν ἄνδρες" οὕτω τὰς νύμφας 
ἀγαγέσθαι σπουδαζέτωσαν. Τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκεν, εἰπέ μοι, ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐκ 
προοιμίων κηλίδων πληρῶσαι συγχωρεῖς τῆς κόρης τὰς ἀκοὰς διὰ τῶν 
αἰσχρῶν ἀσμάτων, διὰ τῆς ἀκαίρου πόμπης ἐκείνης ; οὐκ οἶσθα, ὕπως ἡ 
νεύτης εὔκολος πρὸς ὄλισθον ; τί τὰ σεμνὰ τοῦ γάμου ἐκπομπεύεις μυστήρια; 
δέον ἅπαντα ταῦτα ἀπελαύνειν, καὶ τὴν αἰδῶ ἐκ προοιμίων ἐκπαιδεύειν τὴν 
κόρην. 


Cuap. IV. ὃ 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 349 


inclined to evil? Why do you bring the mysteries of the 
venerable marriage upon the open stage! You ought to drive 
away all this sort, and teach the young bride modesty from 
the beginning.” So again, discoursing of the marriage of 
Jacob and Leah, “ You see,” says he‘, “with what gravity 
marriages were anciently celebrated. Hear this, all ye that 
admire Satanical pomps, and disgrace the honour of marriage 
from the very beginning. Was there here any Satanical 
dancings?, Why do you bring such a plague into your house 
from the very first moment? Why do you call the actors 
from the stage, and, with unseasonable expense, wound the 
virgin’s chastity? It is difficult enough, without such foment- 
ors, to moderate the torrent of youthful affections : but when 
these things are added, both by seeing and hearing, to raise a 
greater flame, and make the furnace of the affections rage 
more violently ; how is it possible that the youthful soul 
should not be destroyed?” From all this it is plain, that it 
was not a sober entertainment at a marriage-feast, nor bare 
music and dancing, nor a modest nuptial song, that the 
Fathers so vehemently declaimed against as Satanical pomps ; 
but it was the obscene and filthy songs, the ribaldry and 
lascivious actions of mimics and buffoons brought from the 
stage, joined with their immodest dancings and other the like 
vanities, tending to corrupt youthful minds, both by seemg 
and hearing, which they justly inveighed against, as unbe- 
coming the modesty and sobriety of Christians. Any other 
innocent pomp or mirth they freely allowed, denying only 
such as sayoured of lightness, or lewdness, or intemperance, 


ἃ Chrysostom. Hom. lvi. in Genes. (vol. iv. p. 539.) Εἶδες τὸ παλαιὸν, μεθ᾽ 
ὅσης σεμνότητος τοὺς γάμους ἐπετέλουν" ἀκούσατε οἱ περὶ τὰς Σατανικὰς 
πομπὰς ἐπτοημένοι, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν προοιμίων τὰ σεμνὰ τοῦ γάμου 
καταισχύνοντες" μήπου αὐλοί ; μήπου κύμβαλα ; μήπου χορεῖαι Σατανικαί ; 
τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκεν, εἰπέ μοι, τοσαύτην λύμην εὐθέως ἐπεισάγεις εἰς τὴν 
οἰκίαν, καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῆς ὀρχήσεως καλεῖς ; ἵνα μετὰ τῆς 
ἀκαίρου δαπάνης καὶ τὴν τῆς κόρης λυμήνῃ σωφροσύνην, καὶ τὸν νέον 
ἀναισχυντότερον ἐργάσῃ ; ἀγαπητὸν γὰρ, καὶ ἄνευ τούτων τῶν ὑπεκκαυ- 
μάτων, ἐκείνην τὴν ἡλικίαν δυνηθῆναι mpdwe ἐνεγκεῖν τὸν χειμῶνα τῶν 
παθῶν: ὅταν δὲ καὶ τοσαῦτα y τὰ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς 
δαψιλεστέραν ἀνάπτοντα τὴν πυρὰν, καὶ τὴν κάμινον τῶν παθῶν φλογω- 
δεστέραν ἐργαζόμενα, πῶς οὐχὶ ὑποβρύχιος ἡ τοῦ νέου ψυχὴ γενήσεται : 


350 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox ΧΧΊΙ. 


which naturally tended, like ‘evil communications, to corrupt 
good manners.” And so I have done with the rites and cere- 
monies observed in the contracting and celebrating of marriage 
among the ancient Christians. There remains only one thing 
behind relating to marriage, and that is to show how the bond 
of matrimony might, in some measure, be broken and dissolved 
by divorce, and what were reputed just and legal causes of 
divorce: of which, because it is a matter of some moment, I 
will treat distinctly in a particular chapter. 





CHAPTER V. 


OF DIVORCES: HOW FAR THEY WERE ALLOWED OR DIS- 
ALLOWED BY THE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS. 


Secr. L—The Ancients divided about the Sense of Fornication. 
Some taking it only for carnal Fornication, and making it the 
only just Cause of Divorce. 


Tue ancients were not perfectly agreed upon this question. 
The writers of the Church were divided among themselves, 
and the laws of the state differed from both. Our business, 
therefore, must be to explain the differences of these opinions, 
and the several practices that were founded upon each of them. 
The ecclesiastical writers, for the most part, agreed in one 
thing,—that there was no just cause of divorce allowed by 
Christ, but only fornication: but then they differed about the 
notion of fornication: some took it in the obvious and vulgar 
sense, for carnal fornication only; whilst others extended its 
signification to include spiritual fornication, or idolatry and 
apostasy from God, which they thought a lawful cause of 
divorce as well as the other. And some few thought all other 
sins that are equal to fornication, were included in this notion 
of fornication, and so made them to be just causes of divorce 
also. They who thought fornication or adultery was to be 
taken in the proper and literal sense, confined the business of 


Cuar. V. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 351 


lawful divorce to this cause only. Clemens Alexandrinus 
speaks in general against divorces’, as they were allowed and 
commonly practised in his time by the authority of the Roman 
laws, which made it necessary in case of adultery, and war- 
rantable, at least, in many other cases. But Tertullian is 
more express, saying», “ That the Creator allows no marriage 
to be dissolved, but only for adultery.” So Chrysostom, in 
many places*: ‘Christ has left but one cause of divorce, that 
is, adultery.” Again‘, “ Christ has taught us, that all crimes 
are to be borne with in the wife, besides adultery.” ‘“ The 
apostles,” he says further®, “ thought it hard and burdensome, 
that a man should retain a woman full of all wickedness, and 
bear with a furious wild beast in his house: and yet he gave 
them this precept (Matt. xix.), ‘ Whosoever shall put away 
his wife, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery.’ 
And this he repeats in other places’. Lactantius seems to 


a Clem. Strom. ii. 6. xxiii. (Oberthiir, vol. v. p. 380.) (Oxon. 1715. p. 506, 
line 31.) “Ore δὲ γαμεῖν ἡ Τραφὴ συμβουλεύει, οὐδὲ ἀφίστασθαί ποτε τῆς 
συζυγίας ἐπιτρέπει, ἄντικρυς νομοθετεῖ: Οὐκ ἀπολύσεις γυναῖκα, πλὴν εἰ μὴ 
ἐπὶ λόγῳ πορνείας" μοιχείαν δὲ ἡγεῖται, τὸ ἐπιγῆμαι ζῶντος θατέρου τῶν 
κεχωρισμένων. 

b Tertul. cont. Mare. lib. iv. ς. xxxiv. (Paris. 1664. p. 450, A 13.) Preeter 
ex causa adulterii, nee Creator disjungit, quod ipse scilicet conjunxit. 

¢ Chrysostom. Hom. xvii. in Matth. (Bened. 1718. vol. vii. p. 228, A 6.) 
Kai γὰρ καὶ τούτῳ καταλιμπάνει τρόπον ἕνα ἀφέσεως, εἰπὼν, Ἰαρεκτὸς 
λόγου πορνείας. 

ἃ [bid. Hom. i. de Decem Millium Debitore. (Bened. 1718. vol. 1BW Ρ 7. 
B 6.) Χριστοῦ πᾶσαν κακίαν γυναικὸς παραινοῦντος φέρειν πλὴν πορνείας 
μόνης. 

e Tbid. Hom. Ixiii. in Matth. (Paris. 1636. p. 552, at bottom.) Καὶ γὰρ 
σφόδρα ἐπαχθὲς εἶναι ἐδόκει τὸ γυναῖκα πάσης κακίας γέμουσαν ἔχειν, καὶ 
ἀνέχεσθαι ἀνημέρου θηρίου διὰ παντὸς ἔνδον συγκεκλεισμένου. 

f Ibid. de Virgin. ¢. xxviii. (Bened. vol. i. p. 288, D 4.) Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι 
πρότερον φορτικὸν εἷναι καὶ ἐπαχθῆ τὸν γάμον ἐνόμισαν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε ἤκουσαν 
τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ταύτην αὐτοὺς κατακλείοντος τὴν ἀνάγκην, εἰς ἣν καὶ τοὺς 
Κορινθίους ὁ Παῦλος τότε: τὸ γὰρ, Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, 
παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι: καὶ τὸ, Ὃ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἰδίου 
σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει, ῥήμασι μὲν ἑτέροις, γνώμῃ δὲ εἴρηται Ty αὐτῇ. Et 
δέ τις ἀκριβέστερον καταμάθοι τὸ TOU Παύλου, Bey ἐπιτείνει τὴν τυραν- 
νίδα, καὶ φορτικώτερον ἐργάζεται τὴν δουλείαν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Κύριος οὐκ 
ἀφίησι κύριον εἶναι τοῦ τῆς οἰκίας ἐκβαλεῖν: ὁ δὲ Παῦλος καὶ τὴν τοῦ 
οἰκείου σώματος ἐξουσίαν παραιρεῖται, πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῇ γυναικὶ 
παραδιδοὺς, καὶ ἀργυρωνήτου μᾶλλον ὑποτάξας οἰκέτου" (p. 840.) τούτῳ μὲν 


352 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


have been of the same mind. For he says, “‘ God commanded 
that the wife should never be put away, but when she was 
overtaken in adultery: and the bond of the conjugal covenant 
can never be loosed, except it be when she breaks it ;” mean- 
ing by falseness to the marriage-contract. St. Basil says the 
same, ‘That our Lord forbids divorce equally both to man 
and woman, save only in the case of fornication.” In like 
manner, Asterius Amasenus:: ‘“‘ What God hath joined toge- 
ther, let no man put asunder. Hear this, ye hucksters,— 
who change your wives as ye do your clothes; who build new 
bride-chambers as often and easily as ye do shops at fairs ; 
who marry the portion and the goods, and make wives a mere 
gain and merchandise; who for any little offence presently 


γὰρ ἔξεστι πολλάκις καὶ παντελοῦς ἐλευθερίας τυχεῖν, εἰ δυνηθείη ποτὲ 
εὐπορήσας ἀργυρίου καταθεῖναι τὴν τιμὴν τῷ δεσπότῃ ὁ δὲ ἀνὴρ κἂν τὴν 
ἁπάντων ἀργαλεωτέραν ἔχῃ γυναῖκα, στέργειν ἀναγκάζεται τῇ δουλείᾳ, καὶ 
14. 
Hom. lili. in eos qui cum Judeeis jejunant. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 604, Ὁ 5.) 
Εἴ τις yap, φησιν, ἔχει γυναῖκα ἄπιστον, Kai αὐτὴ συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετ᾽ 
αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτήν ἂν δὲ πόρνην καὶ μοιχαλίδα, οὐ κωλύεται ἐκβάλ- 
Ae? Ὃς γὰρ ἄν, φησιν, ἀπολύει τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου 





λύσιν οὐδεμίαν οὐδὲ διέξοδον ταύτης δύναται τῆς δεσποτείας εὑρεῖν. 


πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι ὥστε ἐπὶ λόγου πορνείας ἔξεστιν 
ἀπολύειν. Eideg φιλανθρωπίαν Θεοῦ καὶ κηδεμονίαν" ἂν “EhAnvic ἢ, φησιν, 
ἡ γυνὴ, μὴ ἐκβάλλῃς: ἂν δὲ πόρνη, οὐ κωλύω τοῦτο ποιῆσαι: ἂν εἰς 
ἐμέ, φησιν, ἀσεβήσῃ, μὴ ἐκβάλλῃς" ἂν δὲ εἰς σὲ ὑβρίσῃ, οὐδεὶς ὁ κωλύων 
ἐκβάλλειν. 

8 Lactant. Epit. Divin. Instit. 6. lxvi. (Dufresnoy, Paris. 1748. vol. ii. p. 59.) 
Deus preecepit non dimitti uxorem, nisi crimine adulterii revictam, ut num- 
quam conjugalis foederis vinculum, nisi quod perfidia ruperit, resolvatur. 

h Basil. 6. ix. (Labbe, vol. 11. p. 1725.) (Bened. 1721. vol. iii. p. 273, Ὁ 7.) 
Ἢ δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀπόφασις, κατὰ μὲν τὴν τῆς ἐννοίας ἀκολουθίαν, ἐξ ἴσου 
καὶ ἀνδράσι καὶ γυναιξὶν ἁρμόζει, περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐξεῖναι γάμου ἐξίστασθαι, 
παρεκτὸς λόγου μοιχείας. Vid. Hom. vii. in Hexaémeron. (Bened. 1721. 
vol. i. p. 68, B 5.) Kay τραχὺς ἢ, κἂν ἄγριος τὸ ἦθος ὁ σύνοικος, ἀνάγκη 
φέρειν τὴν ὁμόζυγα, καὶ ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς προφάσεως καταδέχεσθαι τὴν ἕνωσιν 
διασπᾷν. 

i Aster. Hom. v. ap. Combefis, Bibl. Patr. Auct. Nov. tom. i. p. 81, A 2. Ὃ 
συνέζευξεν ὁ Θεὸς, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω" ἐλέχθη μὲν ταῦτα τοῖς Φαρι- 
σαίοις τότε' ἀκούσατε δὲ νῦν, οἱ τούτων κάπηλοι, καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ὡς 





ἱμάτια εὐκόλως μετενδυόμενοι: οἱ τὰς παστάδας πολλάκις καὶ ῥᾳδίως 
πηγνύντες, ὡς πανηγύρεως ἐργαστήρια" οἱ τὰς εὐπορίας γαμοῦντες, καὶ τὰς 
γυναῖκας ἐμπορευόμενοι" οἱ μικρὸν παροξυνόμενοι, καὶ εὐθὺς τὸ βιβλίον τῆς 
διαιρέσεως γράφοντες" οἱ πολλὰς χήρας ἐν τῷ ζῇν ἔτι καταλιμπάνοντες" 
πείσθητε, ὅτι γάμος θανάτῳ μόνῳ καὶ μοιχείᾳ διακόπτεται. 


Cuap. V. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 353 


' 


write a bill of divorce ; who leave many widows alive at once ; 
—know of a surety, that marriage cannot be dissolved by any 
other cause but death only or adultery.” St. Jerome! under- 
stands the precept of Christ after the same manner*: ‘“ That 
the wife is not to be dismissed but only for fornication.” And 
this was also the opinion of St. Ambrose. 


Srcr. I].—Others took it to imply Spiritual Fornication, that 
is, Idolatry and Apostasy from God, and other Crimes of the 
like Nature. 


But St. Austin and some others were of opinion, that forni- 
cation or adultery, which our Saviour makes to be the only 
just cause of divorce, was to be understood in a little more 
extensive sense, so as to make it include not only carnal forni- 
cation, but spiritual fornication also, that is, idolatry and apos- 
tasy from God, and all crimes of the like nature. The Fathers 
of the fourth Council of Toledo were certainly of this opinion. 
For they order!, “ That if any Jews were married to Christian 
women, they shall be- admonished by the bishop of the place, 
that if they desire to continue with them, they should become 
Christians. But if upon such admonition they refused, they 
should be separated: because an infidel cannot continue in 


1 Hieron. Ep. xxx. in Epitaph. Fabiole, c. i. (Venet. 1766. Bened. vol. i. 
Ρ. 458, E 2.) Przecepit Dominus uxorem non debere dimitti, execepta causa for- 
nicationis: et si dimissa fuerit, manere innuptam. Quidquid viris jubetur, hoe 
consequenter redundat in feminas. Neque enim adultera uxor dimittenda est, 
et vir meechus tenendus. ‘Si quis meretrici jungitur, unum corpus facit:’ ergo 
et quze scortatori impuroque sociatur, unum cum eo corpus efficitur. Alize sunt 
leges Ceesarum, alize Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus noster preecipit. 
Apud illos viris impudicitize frena laxantur; et solo stupro atque adulterio con- 
demnato, passim per lupanaria et ancillulas libido permittitur: quasi culpam 
dignitas faciat, non voluntas. Apud nos, quod non licet feminis, zeque non licet 
viris, et eadem servitus pari conditione censetur. 

k Ibid. Commentar. in Matth. xix. (Venet. 1769. vol. vii. p. 145, E 9.) Sola 
fornicatio est, quee uxoris vineat adfectum. Ubicumque est igitur fornicatio, et 
fornicationis suspicio, libere uxor dimittitur. 

1 Cone. Tolet. IV. ο. Ixii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 1720.) Judzei, qui Christianas 
mulieres in conjugio habent, admoneantur ab episcopo civitatis ipsius, ut, si 
cum eis permanere cupiunt, Christiani efficiantur. Quod si admoniti noluerint, 
separentur: quia non potest infidelis in ejus conjugio [conjunctione] permanere, 
quze jam in Christianam translata est fidem. 

VOL. VII. Aa 


354 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book ΧΧΊΈΓ, 


matrimonial conjunction with one that was a Christian.” And 
St. Austin, for some time, was clear in this opinion. For in 
his exposition of the Sermon upon the Mount, he says™, “‘ Ido- 
latry, which the infidels follow, and all other noxious super- 
stition, is fornication: and the Lord permitted the wife to be 
put away for the cause of fornication.” Whence he argues 
further, ‘“‘ That if infidelity be fornication, and idolatry be in- 
fidelity, and covetousness be idolatry, there is no doubt to be 
made but that covetousness is also fornication.” Whence he 
likewise concludes, ‘‘ That for unlawful lusts, not only such as 
are committed by carnal uncleanness with other men or women, 
but also for any other lusts, which make the soul, by the ill 
use of the body, go astray from the law of God, and per- 
niciously and abominably corrupt it, a man may, without crime, 
put away his wife, and a wife her husband, because the Lord 
excepted the cause of fornication; which fornication we are 
compelled to take in the most general and universal sense.” 
St. Austin advances the same notion in many other places”: 


m Aug. de Serm. Dom. in Monte, lib. i. 6. xvi. (Bened. 1700. vol. iii. part. ii. 
Ρ. 132, F.) Idololatria, quam sequuntur infideles, et queelibet noxia superstitio, 
fornicatio est. Dominus autem permisit causa fornicationis uxorem dimitti.... 
§ 46. Si infidelitas fornicatio est, et idololatria infidelitas, et avaritia idololatria, 
non est dubitandum et avaritiam fornicationem esse. Quis ergo jam quamlibet 
illicitam concupiscentiam potest recte a fornicationis genere separare, si avaritia 
fornicatio est? Ex quo intelligitur, quod propter illicitas concupiscentias, non 
tantum que in stupris cum alienis viris aut feminis committuntur, sed omnino 
quaslibet, quee animam corpore male utentem a lege Dei aberrare faciunt, et 
perniciose turpiterque corrumpi, possit sine crimine et vir uxorem dimittere, et 
uxor virum: quia exceptam facit Dominus causam fornicationis, quam fornica- 
tionem . . . generalem et universalem intelligere cogimur. 

n Aug. de Adulterinis Conjugiis, lib. i. 6. xviii. tom. vi. p. 848, edit. Basil. 
1569. (Bened. 1700. vol. vi. p. 291, C 12.) Sic recedere ab infidelibus uxoribus 
vel maritis, fideles viri vel feminze non prohibentur a Domino, (1 Cor. vii.) ut 
neque jubeantur. Nam si dimittere tales conjuges juberentur, nullus esset 
locus consilio monentis apostoli, ne hoe fieret, etc. Id. Epist. Ixxxix. ad 
Hilar. in Respons. ad queest. iv. (tom. iii. p. 409, edit. Basil. 1569.) (Bened. 
1700. vol. ii. p. 422, B 3.) In iis, que dimittenda mandavit Christus, (Matt. xix.) 
etiam uxor commemorata est, quam nullis humanis legibus licet vendere, 
Christi autem legibus nec dimittere, excepta causa fornicationis. Quid sibi 
ergo volunt ista preecepta ? (non enim possunt inter se esse contraria:) nisi quia 
occurrit aliquando necessitatis articulus, ubi aut uxor dimittatur aut Christus: 





ut alia omittam, si ipsi uxori maritus displicuerit Christianus, eique proposuerit 
aut a se divortium, aut a Christo. Hie ille quid eligat, nisi Christum, et 


δ 


Cnap. V. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 355 


yet in his Retractations he speaks a little more doubtfully of 
this matter, and says°®, “It is a very dark and dubious ques- 
tion, whether a man may put away his wife for this sort of 
spiritual fornication: but for carnal fornication, that he may 
put her away, is beyond all question.” Hence it appears, that 
this was no very current doctrine in the Church: and yet there 
appear some footsteps of it before St. Austin. For Hermas 
Pastor has the same notion of fornication: “Adultery,” says 
he?, ‘‘is not only in those who defile their own flesh, but every 
one commits adultery that makes an idol. Therefore if a 
woman so commits adultery, and perseveres therein without 
repentance, depart from her, and live no longer with her; for 
otherwise thou wilt be partaker of her sin.” And Origen? is 


dimittat uxorem laudabiliter propter Christum. Ambobus quippe Christianis 
Dominus przecepit, ne quisquam dimittat uxorem, excepta causa fornicationis, 
ete. Vid. de Fide et Oper. c. xvi. (tom. iv. pp. 72, 73, edit. Basil.) 

© Aug. Retract. lib. i. 6. xix. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 22, A 7.) De preecepto 
quo prohibetur uxor dimitti, nisi propter fornicationem, scrupulosissime dis- 
putavi: sed quam velit Dominus intelligi fornicationem, propter quam liceat 
dimittere uxorem; utrum eam que damnatur in stupris, an illam de qua dicitur, 
‘ Perdidisti omnem qui fornicatur abs te,’ in qua utique et ista est, (neque enim 
non fornicatur a Domino, qui tollens membra Christi, facit ea membra mere- 
tricis,) etiam atque etiam cogitandum est atque requirendum. Nee volo in re 
tanta tamque ad dignoscendum difficili putare lectorem istam sibi nostram dis- 
putationem debere sufficere: sed legat et alia, sive nostra quee postea scripta 
sunt, sive aliorum melius considerata atque tractata: vel ipse, si potest, ea quze 
heie merito movere possunt, vigilantiore atque intelligentiore mente discutiat. 
Non quia omne peccatum fornicatio est ; neque enim omnem peeccantem Deus 
perdit, qui quotidie sanctos suos exaudit, dicentes, ‘Dimitte nobis debita 
nostra :’ quum perdat omnem qui fornicatur ab eo. Sed quatenus intelligenda 
atque limitanda sit heee fornicatio, et utrum etiam propter hanc liceat dimittere 
uxorem, latebrosissima quzestio est. Licere tamen propter istam quee in stupris 
committitur, nulla queestio est. Et ubi dixi, hoe permissum esse, non jussum ; 
non attendi aliam Scripturam dicentem, ‘ Qui tenet adulteram, stultus et impius 
est.’ , 

p Herm. Past. lib. ii. Mandat. iv. (Russel, Patr. Apost. vol. i. p. 172.) Non 
solum meechatio est illis qui carnem suam coinquinant: sed et is, qui simula- 
crum facit, meechatur. Quod si in his factis perseverat, et poenitentiam non 
agit ; recede ab illa, et noli convivere cum illa; alioquin et ‘tu particeps eris 
peceati ejus. 

4 Origen. Hom. in Matt. See the ‘ Vetus Interpretatio.’? (Bened. Paris. 
1733. vol. iii. p. 648.) Queerendum est autem, si propter solam causam fornica- 
tionis dimittere jubet uxorem, quid sit si mulier non quidem fuerit fornicata, 
sed aliud quid gravius fecerit; utputa, venefica inveniatur, aut interfectrix 


Aa 2 


2356 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


generally reckoned by learned men as an assertor of this opi- 
nion, ‘ That if a woman was guilty of other crimes equal to, 
or greater than, fornication; as if she was a sorceress, or a 
murderer of her children, or the like; that for such crimes 
she might be lawfully divorced.” But these authorities* are 
not sufficient to counterbalance the former; and, therefore, I 
reckon this but a private opinion in the Church for the three 
first ages. 


Secr. II].—This later Opinion, from the Time of Constantine, 
much countenanced by the Laws of the State. First, by Con- 
stantine himself. 


But when Constantine came to the imperial throne, the 
laws of the state all turned this way, and were made in favour 
of divorce upon other causes besides that of carnal fornication. 
Women indeed had not immediately, in all respects, the same 
privilege as men: but yet for three crimes, specified in one of 
Constantine’s laws’, each sort were at liberty to make divorces. 
The man was at liberty to give a bill of divorce to his wife, if 
she was either an adulteress, or a sorceress, or a bawd: and 


communis infantis nati, aut in quocumque homicidio, aut exportans domum, et 
male dispergens substantiam viri, aut furta viro faciens; si juste hujusmodi 
mulier dimittatur, qaum Dominus excepta causa fornicationis dimittere vetet ? 
Ex utraque enim parte aliquid inhonestum videtur: nescio autem, si vere 
inhonestum. ‘Talia enim mulieris sustinere peccata, quee pejora sunt adulteris 
et fornicationibus, irrationabile esse videbitur. Item facere contra voluntatem 
- doctrinze Salvatoris, omnis confitebitur impium esse. Disputo ergo, quia non 
preeeeptione mandavit, ut nemo dimittat uxorem excepta causa fornicationis, 
sed quasi exponens rem dixit, ‘ Qui dimiserit uxorem.’ 

τ Grot. in Matth. v. 32. Notat Origenes, verba hzee poni magis enuntiando 
quam jubendo.——Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. iii. ¢. xxxi. (Francof. 1673. p. 441.) 
(Wilkins, 1726. vol. ii. p. 850.) Horum uterque (Origenes et Tertullianus) 
liberum divortiorum jus seu extra causam meechize aut causam, ut sentire 
videtur Origenes, non disparem impugnat. ; 

5. Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. xvi. de Repudiis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. 1, p. 310.) 
Placet, mulieri non licere propter suas pravas cupiditates marito repudium 
mittere, exquisita causa, velut ebrioso, aut aleatori, aut mulierculario: nec vero 
maritus per quascumque occasiones uxores suas dimittere. Sed in repudio 
mittendo a femina hzee sola crimina inquiri, si homicidam, vel medicamen- 
tarium, vel sepulchrorum dissolutorem maritum suum esse probaverit. ... In 
masculis etiam si repudium mittant, heee tria crimina inquiri conveniet, si 
meecham, vel medicamentariam vel conciliatricem repudiare voluerit, ete. 


Cuap, V. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 57 


ὧϑ 


the woman, on the other hand, might give a bill of divorce to 
her husband, if he was a murderer, or a sorcerer, or a robber 
of graves: but for being a drunkard, or a gamester, or a for- 
nicator, she had no power against him. And here was the 
great inequality between the man and the woman, that the 
man had liberty by this law to put away his wife for adultery ; 
but the woman had not the same privilege against an adul- 
terous husband. And this is a thing frequently complained of 
by the ancient writers, who thought the man and the woman 
were upon the same foot and right by the law of God; and 
that a woman ought to have as much power to put away a 
fornicating husband, as a husband to put away a lewd wife. 
And, as Gothofred observes', there were some old Roman laws 
which made the privilege equal: as the Rescript of Antonine, 
mentioned by St. Austin", and the judgment of Ulpian, in the 
Pandects*. But, notwithstanding these laws, custom pre- 


t Gothofred. in locunt, p. 312, line 40. Esti veteri quoque aliquando jure 
hane a viris quoque divertendi justam causam fuisse, aliquot exemplis et 
documentis discimus, vel ex hac lege et exemplo, quod ex Apologia Justini 
refert Eusebius, (lib. iv. Hist. Eccles. c. xvii.) et ex Antonini Rescripto, quod 
ex codice Gregoriano memorat Augustinus, lib. ii. ad Pollent. et lib. de Bono 
Conjugal. Eodemque adludit, quod Jurisconsultus seribit, in lib. xiii, sect. v. 7. 
de Adulteriis. 

u Aug. de Adulterin. Conjug. lib. ii. ὁ. viii. (Bened. 1700. vol. vi. p. 299, 
D 4.) Cavendum viro Πὰς ire vivendo, qua timet ne uxor sequatur imitando. 
Sed isti quibus displicet, ut inter virum et uxorem par pudicitize forma serve- 
tur, et potius eligunt, maximeque in hae causa, mundi legibus subditi esse quam 
Christi, quoniam jura forensia non eisdem quibus feminas pudicitize nexibus 
viros videntur obstringere; legant quid.Imperator Antoninus, non utique 
Christianus, de hae re constituerit, ubi maritus uxorem de adulterii crimine 
accusare non sinitur, cui moribus suis non przebuit castitatis exemplum, ita ut 
ambo damnentur, si ambos pariter impudicos conflictus ipse convicerit. Nam 
supra dicti imperatoris hee verba sunt, que apud Gregorianum leguntur. 
4 Sane,’ inquit, ‘ meze litterze nulla parte causze preejudicabunt. Neque enim si 
penes te culpa fuit ut matrimonium solveretur, et secundum legem Juliam 
Eupasia uxor tua nuberet, propter hoc rescriptum meum adulterii damnata erit, 
nisi constet e-se commissum. Habebunt autem ante oculos inquirere, an quum 
tu pudice viveres, illi quoque bonos mores colendi auctor fuisti. Periniquum 
enim mihi videtur esse, ut pudicitiam vir ab uxore exigat, quam ipse non 
exhibet: quze res potest et viruam damnare, non ob compensationem mutui 
criminis rem inter utrumque componere, vel causam facti tollere.’ 

x Pandect. lib. xlviii. tit. v. ad Leg. Juliam de Adult. leg. xiii. § 5. (Amstelod. 
1663. p. 724.) Judex adulterii ante oculos habere debet et inquirere, an maritus, 
pudice vivens, muliere quoque bonos mores colendi auctor fuerit ? 


358 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


vailed on the men’s side to give them license to dismiss their 
wives for fornication, or even any slight cause, without allow- 
ing the same privilege to the woman: as Gothofred there 
evinces, from the complaints made by Lactantius’, Gregory 
Nazianzen”, Asterius Amasenus*, Chrysostom”, Jerome’, and 
several others. And Constantine was much inclined to correct 


Υ Lactant. lib. vi. c. xxiii. (Dufresnoy, vol. i. p. 500.) Servanda fides ab 
utroque alteri est; immo exemplo continentize docenda uxor, ut se caste gerat. 
Iniquum est enim, ut id exigas, quod preestare ipse non possis. Quze iniquitas 
effecit profecto, ut essent adulteria, feminis zegre ferentibus, preestare se fidem 
non exhibentibus mutuam caritatem. Denique nulla est tam perditi pudoris 
adultera, quze non hane causam vitiis suis preetendat ; injuriam se peccando non 
facere, sed referre. Quod optime Quintilianus expressit: ‘ Homo,’ inquit, 
‘neque alieni matrimonii abstinens, neque sui custos, quz inter se natura 
connexa sunt.? Nam neque maritus, circa corrumpendas aliorum conjuges 
occupatus, potest vacare domestic sanctitati: et uxor, quum in tale incidit 
matrimonium, exemplo ipso concitata, aut imitari se putat, aut vindicari. 
Cavendum igitur, ne occasionem vitiis nostra intemperantia demus: sed adsues- 
cant invicem mores duorum, et jugum paribus animis ferant. Nos ipsos in 
altero cogitemus. Nam fere in hoe justitize summa consistit, ut non facias alteri, 
quidquid ipse ab altero pati nolis. : : 

2 Nazianz. Orat. xxxi. (Colon. 1690. vol. i. p. 499, at bottom.) (Bened. 1778. 
vol. i. p. 649, B 7.) Περὶ ἣν ὁρῶ τοὺς πολλοὺς κακῶς διακειμένους, καὶ τὸν 
γόμον αὐτῶν ἄνισον, καὶ ἀνώμαλον" τί On ποτε γὰρ τὸ μὲν θῆλυ ἐκόλασε, 
τὸ δὲ ἄῤῥεν ἐπέτρεψε, καὶ γυνὴ μὲν κακῶς βουλευσαμένη περὶ κοίτην 
ἀνδρὸς μοιχᾶται, καὶ πικρὰ ἐντεῦθεν τὰ τῶν νόμων ἐπιτίμια: ἀνὴρ δὲ κατα- 
πορνεύων γυναικὸς, ἀνεύθυνος ; οὐ δέχομαι ταύτην τὴν νομοθεσίαν, οὐκ 
ἐπαινῶ τὴν συνήθειαν. ἄνδρες ἧσαν οἱ νομοθετοῦντες, διὰ τοῦτο κατὰ 
γυναικῶν ἡ Ῥομοθεσία' .. . πῶς σὺ σωφροσύνην μὲν ἀπαιτεῖς, οὐκ ἀντεισ- 
φέρεις δὲ; πῶς ὁ μὴ δίδως αἰτεῖς ; πῶς ὁμότιμον σῶμα ὧν, ἀνίσως νομο- 
θετεῖς. 

a Aster. Hom. v. (Combefis. Auct. Paris. 1648. p. 92, E 2.) Οὗτος τῆς 
σωφροσύνης ὁ νόμος οὐ ταῖς γυναιξὶ μόνον παρὰ Θεοῦ ὥρισται, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
τοῖς ἀνδράσιν" οἱ δὲ τοῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου νομοθέταις προσέχοντες, ἀνεύ- 
θυνον καταλείπουσι τῆς πορνείας τοῖς ἀνδράσι τὴν ἐξουσίαν, βαρεῖς μὲν 
εἰσιν κριταὶ καὶ διδάσκαλοι τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν σεμνότητος" οἱ δ᾽ ἐν πολλοῖς 
ἀναίδην ἐπιμαίνοντες σώμασιν, ΓΑλλων ἰατροὶ, κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν, μυρίοις 
βρύοντες ἕλκεσιν, κ. τ. Χ. (See Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. v. p. 820, D 11.) 

Ὁ Chrysostom. Homil. xix. in 1 Corinth. (vol. x. p. 159.)——Hom. v. in 
1 Thessal. (Bened. 1718. vol. xi. p. 462, A 5.) Καθάπερ ἡμεῖς τὰς γυναῖκας 
κολάζομεν, ὅταν ἡμῖν συνοικοῦσαι ἑτέροις ἑαυτὰς δῶσιν" οὕτω Kai ἡμεῖς 
κολαζόμεθα, κἂν μὴ ὑπὸ τῶν νόμων Ῥωμαίων, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ" καὶ γὰρ 
καὶ τοῦτο μοιχεία ἐστί: μοιχεία γὰρ οὐ μόνον τῷ ἑτέρῳ συνεζευγμένην μοι- 
χᾶσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ δεδεμένον αὐτὸν γυναικί. 

ὁ Hieron. Epitaph. Fabiole, ep. xxx. Alize sunt leges Ceesarum, ete. See 
note (j), p. 353. 


Cuar. V. 8 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 359 


these abuses and inequality of privileges in the matter of 
divorce between men and women; but in the first beginnings 
of reformation, he could not do every thing as he piously 
intended; and therefore was in a manner constrained to make 
this law with some inequality to women, who might be put 
away for fornication, though they might not for the same 
crime put away their husbands. But as he, in some measure, 
restrained the great liberty of divorcing upon any occasion, 
which the heathen laws before had allowed men, so he granted 
men liberty in more cases to put away their wives, than had 
been generally thought consistent before with the strict imter- 
pretation of the law of Christ. For that, as I showed before, 
takes the exception of fornication or adultery in the strictest 
sense: but Constantine allowed divorce in cases that cannot be 
called fornication in the strict sense, but require a much larger 
interpretation. And whether he consulted the Christian bishops 
at that time before he made his law, or whether the bishops 
then had that extensive notion of fornication, including other 
great crimes, such as murder, sorcery, sacrilege, and the like, 
as Mr. Selden supposes they had,—is what I will not venture 
to assert, because many, in those times, were of a different 
opinion. 


Sect. 1V.—Then by Honorius. 


However it is certain, that the following emperors trod in 
the same steps, still adding more causes of divorce to the first 
three which Constantine had allowed ; for Honorius not only 
allowed of divorces both in men and women for great crimes, 
but also gave way to divorces for lesser faults, only imposing a 
slight penalty upon them. For by one of his laws %, a man, 
for great crimes, might put away his wife, and recover both 
his espousal gifts and dowry, and marry again as soon as he 
pleased: and for lesser faults he might put her away without 


4 Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. xvi. de Repudiis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. i. p. 313.) 
Si divortium prior maritus objecerit, ac mulieri grave crimen intulerit, perse- 
quatur legibus accusatam, impetrataque vindieta et dote potiatur, et suam reci- 
piat largitatem, et ducendi mox alteram liberum sortiatur arbitrium. Si vero 
morum est culpa, non criminum, donationem recipiat, et dotem relinquat, aliam 
post biennium ducturus uxorem. 


360 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 


any other punishment than loss of the dowry, and confinement 
not to marry within two years. So that here was plainly per- 
mitted a greater liberty of divorce than had been allowed by 
the law of Constantine before. Which made Asterius Ama- 
senus complain, as we have heard before*, ‘‘ That husbands 
were mere hucksters in marriage; changing their wives as 
they did their clothes ; building new bride-chambers as often 
and as easily as they did their shops at fairs; marrying the 
portion and the goods, and making wives a mere gain and 
merchandise ; for any little offence presently writing a bill of 
divorce, and leaving many widows alive at once.” And Gotho- 
fred himself complains, that this was the great blemish of this 
age‘: ““ For it had been more agreeable to the Divine law, not 
to have suffered such divorces at all, than to have allowed them 
only with such slight penalties put upon them.” 


Secr. V.—And Theodosius Junior. 


But Theodosius Junior went yet a little further in the former 
part of his reign. For he abrogated the two preceding laws 
of Constantine and Honorius, and reduced back again into use 
the old Roman laws about divorces, by a novel (an. 432), which 
runs in these terms£: ‘* We command that marriages be con- 
tracted by mutual consent ; but when they are contracted, they 
shall not be dissolved otherwise than by giving a bill of divorce. 
But, in giving a bill of divorce, and making inquiry into the 
causes or faults proper to be alleged for divorce, we think it 
hard to exceed the rules of the ancient laws: therefore, now 


e Aster, Hom. v. (Combefis. Auctar. Nov. tom. i. 82.) See sect. i. note (i), 
Ρ. 352. 

f Gothofred., iii. Cod. Theod. tit. xvi. leg. ii. (vol. i. p. 314.) Quze sane magna 
hujus zevi labes fuit. Divino enim preecepto convenientius non ita dissociari 
conjugia quam poenas imponi. 

& Theodos. Novell. xvii. ad caleem Cod. Th. p. 9. Consensu licita matrimonia 
posse contrahi, contracta non nisi misso repudio dissolvi, preecipimus: solutio- 
nem enim matrimonii difficiliorem debere esse, favor imperat liberorum. Sed 
inrepudio culpaque divortii perquirenda, durum est veterum legum moderamen 
excedere. Ideo constitutionibus abrogatis, quee [nune maritum] nune mulie- 
rem matrimonio soluto przecipiunt poenis gravissimis coérceri, hac constitutione 
repudia, culpas, culparumque coerctiones ad veteres leges responsaque pru- 
dentium reyocari censemus, 


% 


Cuap. V. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 36 


abrogating those constitutions which command heavy penalties 
to be laid upon husbands or wives dissolving marriage, we by 
this constitution appoint, that divorces and faults alleged as 
reasons for divorce, and the punishments of such faults, be 
reduced to the ancient laws, and the answers of the prudent.” 
But this abrogation of those two former laws, as Mr. Selden 
observes", was, doubtless, displeasing to very many, as seeming 
to introduce again the licentiousness of old paganism in the 
matter of divorces, and to permit them to be made for any 
fault or crime whatsoever. Therefore within a few years 
Theodosius himself revoked this constitution, making another 
law (an. 449), wherein he specified more particularly the 
causes for which either man or woman might lawfully give a 
bill of divorce’, ‘If any woman found her husband to be an 
adulterer, or a murderer, or a sorcerer, or attempting any 
thing against the government, or guilty of perjury; or could 
prove him a robber of graves, or a robber of churches, or 


h Selden. Uxor Hebr. (Wilkins, Lond. 1726. vol. ii. p. 832.) Abrogatio hee 
procul dubio compluribus admodum displicuit, utpote quae Paganismi in divor- 
tiis libertatem reducere, aut omnimodum ob crimen culpamve ea fieri per- 
mittere visa est. (pp. 416, 417, Francof. 1673.) 

i Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. xvii. de Repudiis, leg. viii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 162.) 
Si qua maritum suum adulterum, aut homicidam, aut veneficum, vel certe con- 
tra nostrum imperium aliquid molientem, vel falsitatis crimine condemnatum 
invenerit, si sepulchrorum dissolutorem, si sacris zedibus aliquid subtrahentem, si 
latronem vel latronum susceptorem, vel abactorem, aut plagiarium, vel ad con- 
temtum [sui] domusyve suze, ipsa inspiciente, cum impudicis mulieribus (quod 
maxime etiam castas exasperat) coetum ineuntem, si suze vitee veneno, aut 
gladio, aut alio simili modo insidiantem, si se verberibus (que ingenuis aliena 
sunt) adficientem probaverit.... Vir pari fine claudetur, nec licebit ei sine 
causis apertius designatis propriam repudiare jugalem, Nec ullo modo expellat, 
nisi adulteram, vel veneficam, aut homicidam, aut plagiariam, aut sepulchrorum 
dissolutricem, aut ex sacris eedibus aliquid subtrahentem, aut latronum fautri- 
cem, aut extraneorum virorum, se ignorante vel nolente, convivia appetentem ; 
aut ipso invito sine justa et probabili causa foris scilicet pernoctantem, vel cir- 
censibus vel theatralibus ludis, vel [arenarum] spectaculis [in ipsis] locis, in 
quibus heee adsolent celebrari, se prohibente, gaudentem ; vel sibi veneno, vel 
gladio, aut alio simili modo insidiatricem ; vel contra nostrum imperium aliquid 
machinantibus consciam, seu falsitatis se crimini immiscentem invenerit, aut 
manus audaces sibi probaverit ingerentem: tune enim necessario ei discedendi 
permittimus facultatem, et causas dissidii legibus comprobare. - - . Quod si 
preeter hzee nupserit, erit ipsa quidem infamis: connubium vero illud nolumus 


nuncupari. 


362 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXII. 
guilty of robbery upon the highway, or a receiver or encou- 
rager of robbers, or guilty of plagiary or man-stealing ; or that 
he associated openly, in her sight, with lewd women ; or that 
he insidiously made attempt upon her life by poison or sword, 
or any other way; or that he beat her with stripes, contrary 
to the dignity of freeborn women: in all these cases she had 
liberty to right herself by a bill of divorce, and make her sepa- 
ration good against him at the law.” In like manner, “ If 
the husband could prove his wife to be an adulteress, or a 
sorceress, or a murderer, or a plagiary, or a robber of graves, 
or a robber of churches, or a harbourer of robbers; or that 
she feasted with strangers against his knowledge or his will ; 
or that she lodged out all night, without any just and probable 
cause, against his consent; or that she frequented the games 
of the cirque, or the theatre, or the place where the gladiators 
or fencers used to fight, against his prohibition; or that she 
made attempts upon his life by poison or sword, or any other 
way; or was partaker with any that conspired against the 
government, or guilty of any false witness or perjury, or laid 
bold hands upon her husband : in all these cases the man had 
equal liberty to give his wife a bill of divorce, and make his 
action good against her at the law.” But if the woman 
divorced herself without any of the foresaid reasons, she was 
to forfeit her dowry and espousal gifts, and to remain five 
years without marrying again. And if she pretended to 
_ marry within that time, she was to be reputed infamous, and 
her marriage to be reckoned as nothing. But, if she rightly 
proved her cause, she was to recover her dowry and ante- 
nuptial gifts, and had liberty to marry again within a year. 
And if the man made good his action against the woman, he 
might retain the dowry and espousal gifts, and marry again as 
soon as he pleased. 


Secr. VI.—And Valentinian IIT. 


‘Not long after Valentinian III. published a novel, wherein, 
abolishing the old Roman practice of making divorces, without 
any other cause but mere consent of both ‘parties (which, 
though forbidden by Constantine, was crept into use again), 


Cuar. V. § 7, 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 363 


he reflects upon the first novel of Theodosius, which also per- 
mitted such divorces by mutual consent; and ordered, that 
the decrees of Constantius* (or rather Constantine, for so it 
should be read), concerning the dissolution of marriage, should 
be observed, permitting none to dissolve their marriage barely 
by mutual consent. 


Secr. VIIl.—And Anastasius. 


Yet, notwithstanding this, Anastasius, about the year 497, 
brought in that antiquated practice again. For though he 
commended the last constitution of Theodosius Junior as an 
excellent law, yet he relaxed the force of it in this one point ; 
ordering !, “‘ That if a divorce was made by mutual consent of 
the man and woman, without alleging any of those causes 
against each other that are mentioned in Theodosius’s law, the 
divorce should be allowed; and the woman should not be 
obliged to wait five years before she. married (as some former 
laws directed), but after one year was expired, she should have 
free liberty to marry as she pleased a second time. 


Srecr. VIII.—And Justinian. 


Thus stood the business of divorces in the civil law to the 
time of Justinian (an. 528), when by a new decree™ of his 
own he not only confirmed all the causes of divorce that had 
been declared legal by the long constitution of Theodosius, but 
added one more to them, which had never been mentioned 


k Valentin. Noy. xii. In ipsorum matrimoniorum reverentia et vinculo, ne 
passim et temere deserantur, antiquata novella lege, que solvi conjugia sola 
contraria voluntate permiserat, ea, quze a diva patre nostro Constantio [al. 
Constantino] decreta sunt, intemerata serventur. 

1 Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. xvii. de Repudiis, leg. ix. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 163.) 
Si constante matrimonio, communi consensu tam viri quam mulieris repudium 
sit missum, quo nulla causa continetur, quee consultissimze constitutioni divze 
memorize Theodosii et Valentiniani inserta est; licebit mulieri non quinquen- - 
nium exspectare, sed post annum ad secundas nuptias convolare. 

m Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. xvii. leg. x. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 163.) In causis 
jam dudum specialiter definitis, ex quibus recta mittuntur repudia, illam 
addimus, ut, si maritus uxori ab initio matrimonii usque ad duos annos: con- 
tinuos computandos coire minime propter naturalem imbecillitatem valeat, 
possit mulier vel ejus parentes sine periculo dotis amittendee repudium marito 
mittere: ita tamen, ut ante nuptias donatio eidem marito servetur. 


86-4 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXII. 


before, viz. the case of imbecility in the man; whom the wife, 
after two years, for this reason might put away by a bill of 
divorce. And this he again repeats in one of his Novels®, 
only with this difference, that instead of two years there should 
be allowed three. In another law °, he adds to all the former 
causes of divorce these that follow, viz.: if the wife indus- 
triously use means to cause abortion; or be so lewd and 
luxurious as to go into a common bath with men; or endea- 
vour, when she is in matrimony, to be married to another man. 
But he hereby cancelled and abolished all such ancient laws as 
allowed of divorce for light and trivial causes. He repeats the 
same causes of divorce in other Novels, and adds to them some 
other causes. As if a man or woman was minded to betake 
themselves to a monastic life, they might then give a bill of 
divorcee, without alleging any other cause of separation ?. 


n Justin. Novel. xxii. 6. vi. (Amstelod, 1663. p. 45.) Kai κατὰ πρόφασιν 
ἀναγκαίαν τε καὶ οὐκ ἄλογον διαλύεται γάμος, bray τις οὐχ οἷός τε εἴη 
συνιέναι τῇ γυναικὶ, καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῆς φύσεως ἀνδράσι δεδομένα πράττειν, 
ἀλλὰ διετία μὲν, κατὰ τὸν περὶ τούτου πρώην παρ᾽ ἡμῶν γεγραμμένον 
νόμον, παραδράμοι ἐκ τοῦ τῶν γάμων καιροῦ" ὁ δὲ, ὅτι ταῖς ἀληθείαις ἐστὶν 
ἀνὴρ, οὐ δείκνυσι: πάρεστι γὰρ τῇ γυναικὶ ἢ τοῖς γε αὐτῆς πατράσι δια- 
ζευγνύναι τὸ συνοικέσιον, καὶ στεῖλαι διαζύγιον, εἰ καὶ μὴ βούλοιτο τοῦτο ὁ 
συνοικῶν" κἀνταῦθα ἡ μὲν προῖξ [εἴ τις ἐστὶν ὕλως ἐπιδεδομένη προῖξ] 
ἀκολουθήσει τῇ γυναικὶ, καὶ ἀποδώσει ταύτην ὁ ἀνὴρ, εἴγε τύχοι λαβών" ἡ 
δὲ διὰ τὸν γάμον ἤτοι πρὸ τῶν γάμων δωρεὰ μενεῖ παρὰ τῷ ἀνδρὶ, οὐδὲν 
οἴκοθεν ζημιουμένῳ᾽ τοῦτον δὲ δὴ τὸν νόμον ἀπανορθοῦμεν βραχείᾳ τινὶ 
προσθήκῃ" οὐ γὰρ διετίαν ἀριθμεῖσθαι μόνην τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ καιροῦ τῆς 
συναφείας, ἀλλὰ τριετίαν βουλόμεθα: καὶ γὰρ ἐδιδάχθημεν ἐκ τῶν ἐπισυμ- 
βάντων ἐν μέσῳ, τινὰς πλείονα ἢ καὶ κατὰ διετίαν χρόνον οὐκ ἰσχύσαντας, 
ὕστερον ἱκανοὺς ὀφθέντας ὑπηρετήσασθαι τῇ τεκνογονίςι. 

9 Cod. Justin. leg. xi. (p. 163.) Si forte uxor sua ope vel industria abortum 
fecerit, vel ita luxuriosa est, ut commune lavacrum cum viris libidinis causa 
habere audeat; vel, dum est in matrimonio, alium maritum sibi fieri conata 
fuerit. 

P Justin. Novel. exvii. ¢. xii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 159.) Ταῖς εἰρημέναις 
αἰτίαις συνείδομεν καὶ ταύτας ὀνομαστὶ προσθεῖναι, ἐξ ὧν τοὺς γάμους 
δίχα ποινῆς ἔξεστι διαλύειν: τουτέστι τήν τε περὶ τῶν μὴ δυναμένων ἐξ 
ἀρχῆς τοῦ γάμου μίγνυσθαι ταῖς ἑαυτῶν γαμεταῖς, καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῆς φύσεως 
ἀνδράσι δεδομένα πράττειν καὶ πρός γε τὴν περὶ τῶν ἐν συνεστῶτι τῷ 
γάμῳ εὐλαβὴ βίον καὶ τὴν ἐν μοναστηρίοις οἴκησιν ἐπιλεγομένων ἀνδρῶν 
ἢ γυναικῶν" καὶ τὴν περὶ τῶν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἐπί τινα χρόνον διακρατου- 
μένων προσώπων' ἐπὶ τούτοις γὰρ τοῖς τρισὶ θέμασι τὰ περὶ αὐτῶν τοῖς 
προτέροις ἡμῶν νόμοις περιεχόμενα, βέβαια εἶναι θεσπίζομεν. Τὰς εἰρημένας 
τοίνυν ἁπάσας αἰτίας, τὰς τῷ παρόντι ἡμῶν νύμῳ περιεχομένας, μόνας 


Cuar. V. ὃ 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 365 


Which was a new law of Justinian’s: for this was never 
allowed as a just cause of divorce before. He allowed also that 
a bill of divorce might be given, in case either party was a 
long time detained in captivity. Which sort of divorces were 
said to be made ‘cum bona gratia4,’ not for any crime, but, 
as it is called, for other reasonable causes. Thus stood the 
matter of divorces in the time of Justinian, when the civil law 
was fully revived and settled in the Roman empire. What 
new laws or alterations were afterward made by other princes 
either in the East or West, to the time of the Reformation, 
the reader that pleases may see in Mr. Selden’, who carries 
the history down to the last ages: but this is beyond the 
limits of the present discourse, which is designed only to 
account for the practice of church or state in the primitive 
ages. 


ἀρκεῖν κελεύομεν πρὸς τὴν διάλυσιν τῶν νομίμων συνοικεσίων" τὰς δὲ 
λοιπὰς ἁπάσας ἀργεῖν παρακελευόμεθα, καὶ μηδεμίαν ἄλλην αἰτίαν πλὴν 
τῶν ὀνομαστὶ ἐγκειμένων τούτῳ τῷ νόμῳ δύνασθαι διαλύειν νόμιμον γάμον" 
Ibid. Cod. lib. i. tit. iii. 
de Epise. et Cler, leg. 111. sect. ili. (p. 23.) "Ere θεσπίζομεν" εἴτε ἀνὴρ ἐπὶ 





εἴτε ἡμετέροις, εἴτε παλαιοτέροις περιέχεται νόμοις. 


μονήρη βίον ἐλθεῖν βουληθείη, εἴτε γυνὴ τὸν ἄνδρα καταλιποῦσα πρὸς 
ἄσκησιν ἔλθοι: μὴ τοῦτο αὐτὸ ζημίας παρέχειν πρόφασιν" ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν 
οἰκεῖα πάντως λαμβάνειν. ὥστε τῇ γυναικὶ τὴν προῖκα εἶναι λαβεῖν τὴν 
αὐτῆς: καὶ τὴν πρὸ γάμου δωρεὰν τῷ συνοικήσαντι' τὸ δὲ ἐκ τούτου κέρδος, 
μὴ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ ῥεπουδίου διάζευξιν ἐκδικεῖν, ἢ μένειν παρὰ τῷ μὴ ἀπο- 
ταξαμένῳ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ἐκ θανάτου σύμφωνον" οἷα δοκοῦντος τοῦ ἀφιστα- 
μένου τῷ τε μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων διαίτης ἀναχωρεῖν τῷγε ἐπὶ τῷ συνοικεσίῳ 
τεθνᾶναι διὰ τὸ τῷ συνοικήσαντι παντελῶς ἄχρηστον εἶναι, καὶ ὕπως ἂν ἡ 
τῶν προικίων συμβολαίων δέξειεν δύναμις ἐκ τῶν ἀπὸ τελευτῆς PEEVE) 
ὀφειλόμενον" τοῦ μὴ θαῤῥεῖν τὴν γυναῖκα πρὶν ἐνιαυτὸν διελθεῖν εἰς ἕτερον 
ἰδεῖν συνοικέσιον διὰ τὴν τῆς γονῆς ἀδηλίαν: ἀλλ’ εἴτι μέλλοι γίνεσθαι 
τοιοῦτο, τηνικαῦτα στέλλεσθαι διαίσιον κατὰ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ καλούμενον ΒΟΝᾺ 
GRATIA, παρὰ τοῦ μὴ τὴν ἄσκησιν ἑλομένου προσώπου" οὕτω τε LTR a 
βούλεται τῶν κερδῶν (κατὰ τὸν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρήμενον τῦθ του) προσγινομένου 
αὐτῷ δηλαδὴ τοῦ ΡΟ Oe 01: ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας ἐκ τρύπου παντὸς, 
εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προτέρων γάμων ἢ ἡ γυνὴ ἢ ὁ ἀνὴρ μείνῃ, ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς 
παισὶ τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γάμου γινομένοις, εἴ τινα εἴη, φυλαττομένου. See also 
Novel. exxxiv. ¢. xi. 

4 Noy. xxii. Mitiores nuptiarum solutiones, tamquam generali quadam 
ratione sub bona gratia factis disjunctionibus, sciendum est, tolerasse quodam- 
modo. 

τ Seld. Uxor Hebr. lib. iii, ec. xxix. xxx. (Lond. fol. 1726. vol. ii. p. 836, &e.) 


BOOK XXIII. 


OF FUNERAL RITES; OR, THE CUSTOM AND MANNER OF 
BURYING THE DEAD OBSERVED IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 





CHAPTER I. 


OF CEMETERIES, OR BURYING-PLACES 3; WITH AN INQUIRY, 
HOW AND WHEN THE CUSTOM OF BURYING IN CHURCHES 
FIRST CAME IN. 


Sect. I.—A Cemetery a common Name for a Burying-place 
and a Church. How this came to pass. 


Brrore we say any thing of the sacred rites and customs 
observed in burying the dead, it will be necessary to give 
some account of the places where they were buried. That 
the Christians had anciently some places peculiar to themselves 
for burying their dead, is evident from hence, that they often 
met in times of persecution to celebrate Divine service at the 
graves and monuments of their martyrs: which had not been 
proper places for such meetings, had they been common to 
them with the heathens. These were called by a general 
name κοιμητήρια, “ ccemeteria,’ ‘dormitories, or ‘ sleeping- 
places,’ because they esteemed death but a sleep, and the 
bodies there deposited not properly dead, but only laid to sleep 
till the resurrection should awaken them. These were other- 
wise called ‘ areee sepulturarum *,’ and ‘ crypte »,’ because they 


a Tertul. ad Scapul. ¢. iii. (Paris. 1664. p. 70, A 2.) Sicut et sub Hilarione 
preeside, quum de areis sepulturarum nostrarum adclamassent, ‘ Areze non sint ;? 
arez ipsorum non fuerunt: messes enim suas non egerunt. 

> Hieron, Comment. in Ezech. ec. xl. (Venet. Vallars. 4to, vol. v. p. 468, B.) 


THE ANTIQUITIES, Xe. 367 


were vaults often made under ground, where the Christians 
could meet with greater safety to hold religious assemblies in 
time of persecution. Upon which account, as I have noted 
elsewhere‘, all these were common names both of burying- 
places and places of religious assemblies. Whence the hea- 
thens often, when they would forbid Christians to hold any 
assemblies for Divine service, forbid them their ‘ areze ;’ as in 
that place of Tertullian, ‘ Aree non sint,’ ‘ Let the Christians 
have none of their ‘areze’ to meet in*;’ and the like prohibi- 
tions we find in other places. So, in like manner, A®mylian, 
the Roman prefect, tells Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria °, 
that they should not have liberty to go into their cemeteries, 
as they called them, and there hold their assemblies for Divine 
worship. In all which places, it is evident, the words are taken 
promiscuously, both for burying-places, and places of assem- 
bling for religious worship. Which would incline a man 
almost to think, were there not otherwise insuperable argu- 
ments against it, that it was the ancient custom of the most 
primitive Christians to bury in churches. 


Secr. I1.—WNo Burying-places in Cities or Churches for the first 
Three Hundred Years. 


But upon a nicer inquiry and more exact view, we are sure 
there neither was nor could be any burying in churches, pro- 
perly speaking, for the first three hundred years. Necessity 
sometimes forced the Christians, during this interval, to hold 
their assemblies in the burying-places of the martyrs, and so 


Dum essem Rome puer, et liberalibus studiis erudirer, solebam cum ceteris 
ejusdem eetatis et propositi, diebus Dominicis sepulcra Apostolorum et Marty- 
rum circuire ; crebroque cryptas ingredi, ete. 

¢ Book viii. chap. i. sect. ix. vol. ii. p. 356. 

d Tertul. ad Scapul. ο. iii. See note (a). Et Gesta Purgationis Ceecilian. ad 
caleem Optati, p. 272. (p. 95, B. Paris. 1679.) Cives in area martyrum fuerunt 
inclusi.—Id. p. 277. (p. 96, D.) Tollat aliquis de vestris in area, ubi orationem 
facitis, et illic ponantur.—Id. Passio Cyprian. p. 12. Ejus corpus positum est 
in areis Macrobii Candidi. 

e Euseb. lib. vii. ὁ. xi. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 211, A 13.) (Reading, 1720. 
p. 335.) Οὐδαμῶς ἔξεσται οὔτε ὑμῖν οὔτε ἄλλοις τισὶν, ἢ συνόδους ποιεῖσθαι, 
ἢ εἰς τὰ καλούμενα κοιμητήρια εἰσιέναι. 


368 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


make a sort of extraordinary and temporary churches of them, 
as they might do of any cave or place of retirement in such 
circumstances : for, as Dionysius of Alexandria well words it‘, 
‘‘ Every place is instead of a temple in time of persecution, 
whether it be a field, or a wilderness, or a ship, or an inn, or 
a prison.” But this occasional use, in an extraordinary case 
and extreme necessity, does not properly make them churches; 
that is, places set apart only for Divine service: and therefore 
the occasional meetings of the primitive Christians in their 
cemeteries, or at the graves and monuments of the martyrs, 
did not, as yet, turn them into churches. Neither can it be 
said, with any propriety, upon this account, that they then 
buried in churches, but only that they made a sort of extra- 
ordinary churches, or places of occasional assembly, at the 
graves or burying-places of the dead. Their churches, which 
were their standing and proper churches, were chiefly then in 
cities, and in most places it may be in cities only: and the 
Roman laws all that time forbade all burying in cities to per- 
sons of every rank and quality whatsoever. Consequently the 
Christians, who lived in a due obedience and subjection to the 
Roman laws in all things of an innocent and indifferent nature, 
noways interfering with the necessary rules of their religion, 
were as ready to comply with this innocent law or custom as 
any others: and that is an undoubted argument, that the 
Christians neither did nor could then bury in churches. The 
heathens, indeed, themselves sometimes brake through the 
laws, and in spite of prohibition and restraint would presume 
to bury in cities: but we nowhere find this accusation of 
transgressing the laws in this particular brought against the 
Christians ; but, rather, the Christians objected the transgres- 
sion of it to the heathens: as Savaro, in his learned notes 
upon Sidonius Apollinaris’, shows out of several passages of 


f Euseb. lib. vii. ὁ. xxii. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 291, B 6.) (Reading, p. 347, 
10.) Πᾶς ὁ τῆς καθ᾽ ἕκαστον θλίψεως τόπος, πανηγυρικὸν ἡμῖν γέγονε 
χωρίον" ἀγρός' ἐρημία: ναῦς" πανδοχεῖον' δεσμωτήριον. 

8. Savaro in Sidon. lib. iii. ep. xii. (Paris. 1609. p. 207.) Veteres in canipis et 
agris cadavera sepeliebant, non in urbibus ... qui mos cum apud Greecos, tum 
apud Latinos obtinuit. Polybius, lib. vi. et lib. viii. Diogenes Laértius in 
Pyrrhone Heliensi, apud Latinos, ex. 12. ‘In urbe ne sepelito neve urito :’ que 





Crap. 1. ὃ 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 269 


Clemens Alexandrinus, Arnobius, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus, 
. Prudentius, and others. It was one of the original laws of 
the twelve tables, ‘ In urbe ne sepelito, neve urito”,’ ‘ Let no 
one bury or burn in the city. This was afterward confirmed, 
upon some transgression, by a decree of the senate, when 
Duellius was consul, as Savaro shows further out of Servius’s 
observations upon Virgil. And then, for some time, the prac- 
tice was to bury only in the suburbs, and not in the city, as 
the same author shows out of Tully, Livy, and Ovid. After- 
ward, upon some invasion made again upon the law (for the 
heathens were still ambitious of burying in the temples), 
Hadrian published a new edict to forbid it', laying a penalty 


lex quum exolevisset, et plerique intra urbem inhumarentur, et quot Romee 
templa, tot sepulera prius fuerant. Clemens Alexandrin. ad Gentes, Arnobius, 
lib. vi.; Lactantius, lib. i. 6. xi.; Plutarch. Rerum Romanar. 6. xxix. ; Julius 
Firmicus de Errore Prof. Relig. ; Prudent. lib. i. cont. Symmachum ; Festus I. 
in Argea loca. Id. iii. in Cincia, postea senatusconsulto cautum est, ne quis in 
urbe sepeliretur. Servius, lib. xi. ad hee, 
Urbique remittunt ; 

‘Meminit, inquit, ‘antique consuetudinis ; nam etiam ante homines in civitate 
sepeliebantur, quod postea Duellio consule senatus prohibuit, et legavit ne quis 
in urbe sepeliretur.? Unde mos invaluit, ut in continentibus urbis humatio 
fieret. Ovidius: 

Inque suburbano membra sepulta solo, 
M. Tullius pro Roscio; et T. Livius, lib. xi. ab Urbe Cond. Gregorius, Turon. 
de Glor. Confessor. ¢. xxx. quod senatusconsultum, quum penitus antiquatum 
esset, ἢ. Hadrianus restituit, lib. ii. 8. Ὁ. Hadrianus, de Sepulch. Violato. 
Itemyue ejus successor Antonin. Pius, intra urbes sepeliri mortuos vetuit. 
Capitolinus: (see following note j.) Paulus I. sentent. titulo ultimo, § ii. ‘ Corpus 
in civitatem inferri non licet.’—Id. § iii. Sed quum leges illee conculcarentur, ut 
omnes intra ecclesias et urbes sepeliri vellent, id Christiani imperatores vetue- 
runt, leg. vi. Cod. Theod. de Sepulch. Violato, et leg. ii. Cod. de Relig. et 
Sumpt. Funer. Leo Sapiens, Nov. liii. legem illam refixit, quam legem Galli 
religiose excoluerunt, Concilii Bracarensis primi cap. xxxvi.: Nam si firmissi- 
mum hoe privilegium usque nune retinent Gallize civitates, ut nullo modo intra 
ambitum murorum civitatum cujuslibet defuncti corpus sit humatum, ete. 
Dallzeus de Objecto Cultus Religiosi, lib. iv. ¢. vii. pp. 620, 621. 

h Cicer. de Legibus, lib. ii. 6. xxiii. (Rath. 1809. p. 207.) Hominem mortuum 
in urbe ne sepelito, neve urito. 

i Ulpian. in Digest. Jib. xlvii. tit. xii. de Sepulchro Violato, leg. iii. sect. v. 
Divus Hadrianus reseripto poenam statuit quadraginta aureorum in eos, qui in 
civitate sepeliunt: quam fisco inferri jussit et in magistratus, eadem qua passi 
sunt: et locum publicari jussit, et corpus transferri. Quid tamen, si lex muni- 
cipalis permittat in civitate sepeliri? post rescripta principalia an ab hoe dis- 

VOL. VII. Bb 





370 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


of forty pieces of gold upon any one that should presume to 
bury in the city, and as much upon the judges that permitted 
it; ordering the place to be confiscated, and the body to be 
removed: and no municipal or private laws in this case, Ulpian 
says, were to be regarded against the general law of the prince. 
Antoninus Pius, successor to Hadrian, revived the same law, 
forbidding any to bury the dead within the cities, as Julius 
Capitolinus), the writer of his Life, informs us. And Gotho- 
fred cites Paulus, the eminent lawyer, as concurring in the 
same judgment, and giving a good reason for it*: ‘ It is not 
lawful for any corpse to be buried in the city, that the sacred 
places of the city be not defiled.” Finally, Diocletian’ men- 
tions and confirms these preceding laws by a law of his own, 
wherein he gives the same reason against burying in cities, as 
Paulus did before. Hence it was, that graves and monuments 
were commonly erected by the highways’ side, as Varro, an 
ancient Roman writer, observes; giving a further reason for 
it™, ‘That passengers might be admonished that they them- 
selves were mortal, as well as those that lay buried there.” 
Augustus and Tiberius were buried in the Via Appia®, and 
Domitian in the Via Latina®. And, accordingly, Juvenal ? 


cessum sit, videbimus: quia sunt generalia rescripta, et oportet imperialia 
statuta suam vim obtinere et in omni loco valere. 

J Capitolin. Vit. Antonini Pii. (Lugd. Bat. 1661. p. 144.) Intra urbes sepeliri 
mortuos vetuit. 

k Paulus, Sentent. lib. i. cap. ult. ap. Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. ix. 
tit. xvii, de Sepulchris Violatis, leg. vi. (vol. iii. p. 149.) ‘Corpus in civitatem 
inferri non licet, ne funestentur sacra civitatis :’ et qui contra ea fecerit, extra 
ordinem punitur. 

1 Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xliv. de Religiosis et Sumtibus Funerum, leg. xii. 
(Amstelod. 1663. p. 107.) Mortuorum reliquias, ne sanctum municipiorum jus 
polluatur, intra civitatem condi jam pridem vetitum est. 

m Varro de Lingua Latina, lib. v. citante Gothofred. 1. ὁ. p. 148. Sepulchra 
ideo secundum yiam sunt, quo praetereuntes admoneant, et se fuisse, et illos 
esse mortales. Tertul. de Testimon. Anime, ec. iv. (Paris. 1662. p. 66, C 8.) 
Vocas porro securos (defunctos) si quando extra portam cum obsoniis et matteis 
tibi potius parentans ad busta recedis, aut a bustis dilutior redis. 

n Seneca, Apocolocynth. Claud. (Ruhkopf, vol. iv. p. 375.) Appize Viee curator 
est, qua 5615 et divum Augustum et Tiberium Czesarem ad deos isse. 

ο Sueton. Vit. Domitian. 6. xvii. (B. Crusius, vol. ii. p. 356.) Cadaver ejus, 
populari sandapila per vespillones exportatum, Phyllis nutrix in suburbano suo 
Latina Via funeravit. 





Crap. I. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 37 1 


speaks of the dead in general, as those that lay buried in 
the Via Flaminia and Latina‘. St. Peter, upon this account, 
was buried in the Via Triumphalis, beyond the Tiber, as 
St. Jerome? informs us: and St. Paul in the Via Ostiensis, 
three miles without the gate of the city*, as the same author, 
and all others that speak of their deaths, assure us. Nay, 
Sidonius Apollinaris assures us further, that the place where 
St. Peter was buried, though there was then a church built 
over it, was still, in his time (an. 470), without the ‘ pomeeria,’ 
or ‘space before the walls,’ of Rome. For, speaking of his 
journey to Rome, he says‘, before ever he came at the 
‘pomeeria’ of the city, he went and saluted the church of the 
apostles, which stood in the Via Triumphalis: which implies, 
that his monument and church was still without the walls. 
And so, generally, the graves and monuments of the martyrs 
are spoken of as being without the cities: as St. Cyprian’s ", 
in the Via Mappaliensis ; and Sixtus, in the cemetery of 
Calixtus, in the Via Appia”; and his six deacons, in the 
cemetery of Pretextatus, Via Appia; and St. Laurence in 
the Crypta, Via Tiburtina. And upon this account, in after- 
ages, when they held assemblies at the monuments of the 
martyrs, we always find them speaking of going out of the 
cities into the country, where the martyrs lay buried. Thus 


P Juvenal. Satir. i. 171. 

Quorum Flaminia tegitur cinis atque Latina. 

4 See more from Dempster, in Rosini Antiq. Roman. lib. v. cap. ult. p. 1006. 

r Hieron. de Scriptor. ¢. i. (Venet. Vallars. vol. ii. p. 827.) Sepultus Rome, 
in Vaticano, juxta Viam Triumphalem, totius urbis veneratione celebratur. 

s Ibid. ο. v. (Venet. Vallars. vol. ii. p. 838.) Hie xiv. Neronis anno, eodem 
die quo Petrus, Romz pro Christo capite truncatus, sepultusque est in Via 
Ostiensi, anno post passionem Domini tricesimo septimo. 

t Sidon. Apoll. lib. i. epist. v. (Sirmond. Paris. 1614. p. 11.) Priusquam vel 
pomeeria contingerem, triumphalibus apostolorum liminibus adfusus, omnem 
protinus sensi membris male fortibus explosum esse languorem, ete. 

u Passio Cypriani. (Paris. 1726. p. 148.) Ejus corpus propter gentilium 
curiositatem in proximo positum est. Inde per noctem sublatum cum cereis et 
scolacibus, ad areas Macrobii Candidiani procuratoris, quee sunt in Via Map- 
paliensi, juxta piscinas, cum voto et triumpho magno deductum est. 

w Pontific. Vit. Sixti. [Not. Apud Labbeum, tom. i. Cone. p. 553, hae non 
invenio, sed ista ibi leguntur: ‘Qui sepultus est juxta corpus Beati Petri in 
Vaticano.’ —Grischor. | 


Bb 2 


372 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII, 


Chrysostom, in one of his homilies upon the martyrs, says *, 
‘“‘ As before, when the festival of the Maccabees was celebrated, 
all the country came thronging into the city; so now, when 
the festival of the martyrs, who lie buried in the country, is 
celebrated, it was fit the whole city should remove thither.” 
In like manner, speaking of the festival of Drosis, the martyr, 
he says’, ‘‘ Though they had spiritual entertainment in the 
city, yet their going out to the saints in the country afforded 
them both great profit and pleasure.” From all which it is 
evident to a demonstration, that for the three first centuries 
the Christians neither did nor could bury in the cities or city 
churches, because the Roman laws, with which they readily 
complied, were absolutely against it. If, afterwards, at any 
time we meet with martyrs lying in churches, that is only to 
be understood of the relics of martyrs translated into the city 
churches, or of churches newly built in the country over the 
graves and monuments of the martyrs, neither of which has 
any relation at all to burying in churches: because the one 
was only the translation of their ashes in an urn some ages 
after ; and the other rather an erecting of new churches in the 
places where the martyrs lay buried some ages before, than 
any proper burial of the martyrs in churches. Though this 
gave the first occasion in future times to the innovation that 
was made in this matter of burying in churches, as we shall 
see more hereafter. 


Sect. Il1.—But either in Monuments erected by the Public, or 
in Vaults and Catacombs in the Fields under Ground. 


Meanwhile, let it be observed, that the common way of 
burying, for this interval of three hundred years, was either in 
graves with monuments set over them in the public roads, or 
else in vaults and catacombs, for greater safety made in the 


x Chrysostom. Hom. Ixv. de Martyribus. (See p. 135, note (k). Book xx. 
chap. vii. sect. iii.) 

y Chrysostom. Hom. Ixvii. in Drosidem. (Bened. 1718. vol. ii. p. 688, B 7.) 
Πλήρης μὲν γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ ἔνδον ἡ τράπεζα τῶν πνευματικῶν ἐδεσμάτων 
παρέκειτο, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους ἔξοδος τούτους ἔχει τινὰ καὶ ψυχαγω- 
γίαν, καὶ κέρδος τῆς ψυχαγωγίας οὐκ ἔλαττον. 


(παν. I. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 373 


fields under ground. For that they had such vaults for this 
purpose, called ‘ crypte,’ and ‘arenaria, from their being 
digged privately in the sand under ground, is evident both 
from the ancient and modern accounts of them. Baronius’” 
tells us there were about forty-three such in the suburbs of 
Rome: and Onuphrius* gives us a particular account of their 
names (taken from the names of their founders, or such chari- 
table persons as were at the pains or charge to build or repair 
them) : and what is chiefly remarkable, he tells us the places 
where they were, viz. not in the city, but in the ways, or roads, 
without the walls, leading from Rome to other places, as the 


2 Baron, an. 226. n. ix. (Luce, vol. ii. p. 474.) Praeter coemeteria duo, Cal- 
listi et Calepodii, quorum heic menutio est, illud fuit cum primis nobilissimum, 
positum in Vaticano, in quo S. Petri et aliorum plurimum summorum ponti- 
ficum corpora condita sunt: aliud Ostianum Via Salaria, in quo idem 8. Petrus 
dicitur baptizasse, cujus mentio est in Actis Liberii Papee : quintum ad Nym- 
phas dictum, Via Numentana, in preedio Severe, septimo ab urbe lapide: 
sextum Soteris nominatum, haud longe a ccemeterio Callisti; juxta quod etiam 
septimum situm erat coemeterium Zephyrini; octavum Preetextati, Via Appia: 
nonum Pontiani: Cyriacee matron decimum, in agro Verano: undecimum 
Lucinz, Via Aurelia: duodecimum Aproniani Via Latina: decimum tertium 
Felicis Papze, Via Aurelia, secundo ab urbe lapide: decimum quartum Pris- 
cille, Via Salaria, tertio ab urbe lapide juxta cryptam sancti Crescentionis : 
quintum decimum Timothei, Via Ostiensi, in loco, ubi nune est basilica 
S. Pauli: decimum sextum Novelle dictum Via Salaria: decimum septimum 
S. Balbinee, inter Viam Appiam et Ardeatinam, idemque nominatum Marci 
Papee: insuper coemeterium Julii, Via Flaminia: aliud ejusdem nominis, Via 
Aurelia: rursus aliud ejusdem quoque nominis, Via Portuensi, quod numeratur 
vigesimum : rursum coemeterium Damasi, inter Viam Ardeatinam et Appiam : 
vigesimum secundum vero quod dicebatur Anastasii Papze, tempore pacis intra 
urbem in Esquilino factum: vigesimum tertium Hermetis: aliud Nicomedis, 
Via Ardeatina: vigesimum quintum sanctee Agnetis, Via Nomentana: vigesi- 
mum sextum sanctze Felicitatis, Via Saleria: vigesimum septimum dictum 
Jordanorum: vigesimum octavum Nerei: Sanctorum Felicis et Adaucti unde- 
trigesimum: trigesimum vero Tiburtii et Valeriani: xxxi. sanctorum Petri et 
Marcellini, Via Lavicana: xxxii. Marci et Marcelliani; quod sequitur xxxiii. 
dictum Quarti et Quinti: itemque illud sanctee Agathe Via Aurelia: xxxv. 
cemeterium Ursi: et aliud quod dictum est Cardianum; trigesimum vero 
septimum dictum est, Inter duas lauros: trigesimum octavum ad clivum cucu- 
meris, Via Salaria: coemeterium vero Thrasonis ad Sanctum Saturninum 
ponitur trigesimum nonum: quadragesimum vero Cyriaci, Via Ostiensi: qua- 
dragesimum primum Petronillee: quadragesimum secundum Januarii: denique 
quadragesimum tertium Simplicii et Serviliani. Quorum omnium fit mentio in 
libro de Romanis Pontificibus, et aliis in locis. 

a Onuphr. de Coemeteriis, ¢. xii. (pp. 18—22, Colon. 1568.) 


374 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Via Appia, Aurelia, Ostiensis, Nomentana, Tiburtina, Latina, 
Salaria, Flaminia, Portuensis, Ardeatina, Lavicana, &e. : 
which are the known roads leading to the neighbouring cities 
about Rome. And by this we may understand what St. Jerome 
means, when he says», “It was his custom, when he was a 
boy at school in Rome, on Sundays, to go about and visit the 
sepulchres of the apostles and martyrs, and often to enter into 
the vaults, which were digged deep into the ground, and on 
each side, as one went in, had along by the walls the bodies of 
such as lay buried: and were so dark, that to enter in them 
was, in the Psalmist’s language, ‘ Almost like going down 
alive into hell: the light from above peeped in but here and 
there, a little to take off the horror of darkness, not so much 
by windows as little holes and crannies, which still left a dark 
night within, and terrified the minds of such as had the 
curiosity to visit them, with silence and horror.” This is to 
be understood, not of any places within the city, but of those 
vaults which lay by the several ways round about Rome. And 
the description agrees very well with the account which 
Baronius® gives of one of them, called ‘the cemetery of 


> Hieron. in Ezech. ὁ. xl. (Venet. Vallars. vol. ii. p. 468, B.) Dum essem 
Romee puer, et liberalibus studiis erudirer, solebam, cum ceteris ejusdem zetatis 
et propositi, diebus Dominicis sepulchra apostolorum et martyrum circuire: 
erebroque cryptas ingredi, quee in terrarum profunda defossze, ex utraque parte 
ingredientium, per parietes habent corpora sepultorum, et ita obscura sunt 
omnia, ut propemodum illud propheticum compleatur, ‘Descendant ad infernum 
viventes :’ et raro desuper lumen admissum horrorem temperet tenebrarum, ut 
non tam fenestram, quam foramen demissi luminis putes: rursumque pedeten- 
tim acceditur, et cxeca nocte circumdatis illud Virgilianum proponitur : 


Horror ubique animos, simul ipsa silentia terrent. 


© Baron. an. 130. n, ii. (Luce, vol. ii. p. 117.) Vidimus seepiusque lustravi- 
mus Priscillee coometerium, haud pridem inventum atque refossum Via Salaria 
tertio ab urbe lapide; quod nullo magis proprio vocabulo dixerimus prze ejus 
amplitudine, multisque atque diversis ejusdem viis, quam subterraneam civita- 
tem: quippe quod ipsius ingressu primaria via ceteris amplior pateat, quee hine 
inde diversas vias habeat, easdemque frequentes, quee rursus in diversos viculos 
dividantur et angiportus: rursus, ut in civitatibus, statis locis velut fora quee- 
dam, ampliora sint spatia ad conventus sacros agendos, eademque sanctorum 
imaginibus exornata; nec desint, licet nune obstructa, ad lumen recipiendum 
desuper excisa foramina. Obstupuit urbs, quum in suis suburbiis abditas se 
novit habere civitates, Christianorum tempore persecutionis olim colonias, modo 
autem sepulchris tantum refertas, ete. 


Cuar. 1. 8 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 375 


Priscilla,’ discovered in his time (an. 1578), in the Via Salaria, 
about three miles from Rome. He says, ‘“‘ At the entrance of 
it there was one principal way, which on either side opened 
into divers other ways, and those again divided into other 
lesser ways, like lanes in a city: there were also some void 
open places, fitted for their holding of religious assemblies, 
which had in them the effigies and representations of martyrs. 
And likewise there were holes at the top of it to let in light, 
but these were long ago stopped up.” These catacombs of 
Rome have made the greatest noise in the world; but there 
were such belonging to many other cities. Bishop Burnet 
describes those of Naples?, which, he says, are without the 
city, and much more noble and spacious than those of Rome. 
He supposes them to be made by the heathens, and not by 
the Christians: which is not a dispute material in our present 
inquiry: because, whether they were made by the one or the 
other (probably some were made by each®), they were still 


ἃ Burnet’s Travels, Letter iv. (pp. 162, 163.) (Lond. 1708. p. 201.) Without 
the city, near the church and hospital of St. Gennaro, that is without the gates, 
are the noble catacombs, which because they were beyond any thing I saw in 
Italy, and to which the catacombs of Rome are not to be compared, and since 
T do not find any account of them in all the books that I have yet seen con- 
cerning Naples, I shall describe them more particularly. They are vast and 
long galleries, cut out of the rock: there are three stories of them one above 
another. I was in two of them, but the rock is fallen in the lowest, so that one 
cannot go into it; but I saw the passage to it. These galleries are generally 
about twenty foot broad, and about fifteen foot high; so that they are noble 
and spacious places, and not little and narrow as the catacombs of Rome, which 
are only three or four foot broad, and five or six foot high. I was made 
believe that these catacombs of Naples went into the rock nine mile long; but 
for that I have it only by report: yet if that be true, they may perhaps run 
towards Puzzolo, and so they may have been the burial places of the towns on 
that bay: but of this I have no certainty. I walked indeed a great way, and 
found the galleries going off in all hands without end ; and, whereas, in the 
Roman catacombs there are not above three or four rows of niches that are cut 
out in the rock, one over another, into which the dead bodies were laid; here 
there are generally six or seven rows of those niches, and they are both larger 
and higher. Some niches are for children’s bodies ; and in many places there 
are in the floors, as it were, great chests hewn out of the rock, to lay the bones 
of the dead, as they dried, in them, ete. 

e Christian catacombs are mentioned in a very ancient book, called Depositio 
Martyrum, cited by Bishop Pearson, Annal. Cyprian. an. 258. p. 62. (p. 49. 
sect. ii. edit. Amstel. 1700.) Ratio, si recte capio, in antiquissima Depositione 


376 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIIT. 


without the walls of the cities ; which is enough to our present 
purpose. And to this agrees the testimony of that ancient 
writer under the name of St. Chrysostom, who says in generalf, 
‘“‘ That every city, nay, every village, had their graves or bury- 
ing-places, before the entrances into them, that they who went 
in, might first consider what they themselves were, before they 
set a foot into the cities flourishing with riches, dignity, and 
power. There are graves before cities, and graves before 
fields: every where the school of humility lies before our 
eyes.” Now I think, upon the whole, we can hardly have 
better proof of any thing than we have of this, whether we 
consider law or fact, that for the first three hundred years 
under the heathen emperors, the general rule and custom was 
to bury without the walls of the cities, and, consequently, 
neither in cities nor city churches, unless by some connivance 
or transgression. 

Hegesippus, indeed, and Eusebius, and St. Jerome after 
them £, say, that St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, was buried 
in the city, near the temple where he was slain: but St. Jerome 
owns there were some who thought he was buried upon Mount 
Olivet : which is much more probable: because it is certain, 
from the Gospel, that it was the custom of the Jews to bury 
without the city (Matth. xxvii. 60; Luke vii. 12; John xi. 
90). And Eusebius", speaking of the mausoleum, or monu- 
ment of Helena, queen of Adiabene, says expressly, it was 


Martyrum continetur ; ubi hee leguntur, ‘ Tertio Kalendas Julii, Petri in cata- 
cumbas, et Pauli Ostiense, Tusco et Basso Coss.’ 

f Chrysostom. Hom. xvii. de Fide et Lege Nature. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. 
p- 829, D.) Πᾶσα πόλις, πᾶσα κώμη πρὸ τῶν εἰσόδων τάφους Exe ἐπείγε- 
ταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς πόλιν βασιλεύουσαν, καὶ κομῶσαν πλούτῳ καὶ δυνασ- 
τείᾳ, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀξιώμασι: Kai πρὶν ἴδῃ ὃ φαντάζεται, βλέπει πρῶτον 
ὃ γίνεται: τάφοι πρὸ τῶν πόλεων, τάφοι πρὸ τῶν ἀγρῶν. πανταχοῦ τὸ δι- 
δασκάλιον τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν πρόκειται, καὶ παιδευόμεθα πρῶτον εἰς τί 
See Tertul. de Testi- 





καταλήγομεν, καὶ τότε ὁρᾷν τὰ ἔσω φαντάσματα. 
mon. Anime, 6. iv. cited sect. ii. note (m), p. 370. 

§ Euseb. lib. ii. c. xxiii. (Amstelod. 1695. p. 52, A 8.) ΓἜθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ 
τόπῳ, καὶ ETL αὐτοῦ ἡ στήλη μένει παρὰ τῷ ναῷ. 

h Tbid. lib. ii. ὁ. xii. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 39, D 1.) (Reading, 1720. 
p- 61.) Τῆς yérou “Ἑλένης, ἧς δὴ καὶ ὁ συγγραφεὺς ἐποιήσατο μνήμην, εἰσέτι 
νῦν στῆλαι διαφανεῖς ἐν προαστείοις δείκνυνται τῆς νῦν Αἰλίας: Τοῦ δὲ 
᾿Αδιαβηνῶν ἔθνους αὕτη βασιλεῦσαι ἐλέγετο. 


Cuar. I. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. B07 


ἐν προαστείοις, ‘in the suburbs’ of Jerusalem. So that, for 
any thing that appears to the contrary, it may be concluded to 
have been the general custom of Christians, Jews, and Romans, 
to bury all their dead without the cities for the first three 
hundred years. 


Sect. 1V.—Burying in Cities and Churches prohibited by 
Christian Emperors, for several ages after. 

Let us next examine how this matter stood in the next 
period of time, when the emperors and laws were both become 
Christian. Now here we find that the laws stood for many 
ages just as they were before, forbidding all burying in cities ; 
and some new laws were made, particularly prohibiting and 
restrainng men from burying in churches. For when some 
persons in Constantinople began to make an invasion upon the 
laws, under pretence that there was no express prohibition of 
burying in churches made in them; Theodosius, by a new 
lawi, equally forbade both burying in cities and burying in 
churches; and this, whether it was only the ashes, or relics, 
of any bodies kept above ground in urns, or whole bodies laid 
in coffins: they were all to be carried and reposited without 
the city, for the same reasons that the old laws had assigned, 
viz. that they might be “examples and memorials of mortality, 
and the condition of human nature, to all passengers ; and also 
that they might not defile the habitation of the living, but 
leave it pure and clean to them. And if any presumed to 
transgress, henceforward, the inhibition of this law, he was to 
forfeit the third part of his patrimony: and whatever officer 
was assisting in such a funeral, was to be amerced in a fine of 


i Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Sepulchris Violatis, leg. vi. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 147.) Omnia, quze supra terram urnis clausa, vel sarcophagis corpora 
detinentur, extra urbem delata ponantur, ut et humanitatis instar exhibeant, et 
relinquant incolarum domicilio sanctitatem. Quisquis hujus preecepti negli- 
gens fuerit, atque aliquid tale ab hujus interminatione preecepti ausus fuerit 
moliri, tertia in futurum patrimonii parte multetur: Officium quoque, quod 
sibi paret, quinquaginta librarum auri adfectum dispoliatione merebitur. Ac 
ne alicujus fallax et arguta sollertia ab hujus se preecepti intentione subducat, 
atque apostolorum vel martyrum sedem humandis corporibus zestimet esse con- 
cessam, ab his quoque, ita ut a reliquo civitatis, noverint se atque intelligant 


esse submotos. 


378 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


forty pounds of gold. And that no little quirk or subtlety 
should elude the intention of this law, and leave men at liberty 
to think that this general prohibition of burying in the city, 
did not exclude men from burying in the places where the 
ashes of the apostles and martyrs were reposited, it was ex- 
pressly provided, that they should be secluded from these repo- 
sitories, as well as any other places within the city. St. Chry- 
sostom takes notice of this law, arguing thus with sinners, 
whom he reckons no better than mere graves and sepulchres, 
when dead in trespasses and sins: ‘‘ Consider,” says he‘, “ that 
no grave is allowed to be made in the city: therefore, neither 
canst thou appear in the city that is above. For if this be 
forbidden in an earthly city, how much more in that which is 
heavenly?” In like manner, in another place!: “ If we bury 
dead bodies without the city, much more ought we to expel 
those who speak dead words, offensive to others, and utter 
things they ought to conceal: for such mouths are the com- 
mon pest and plague of the city.” The author under the name 
of St. Chrysostom™, probably Severianus of Gabala, one of his 
contemporaries, had his eye upon this law and those that went 
before, when he said, “‘ Every city and village had their bury- 
ing-places before their entrance into them.” This is not only 
an evidence of what went before, but also of the practice of 
his own times, pursuant to the law, about the year 400. Sido- 
nius Apollinaris, a French bishop, lived almost a whole century 
after this; and he plainly intimates, that it was still the cus- 
tom, in France, to bury without the walls of the city, in the 


Kk Chrysostom. Hom. Ixxiii. al. Ixxiv. in Matth. (Bened. vol. vii. p. 711, A 6.) 
᾿Ἐννόησον ὕτι οὐδεὶς τάφος ἐν πόλει κατασκευάζεται: οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ σὺ εἰς 
τὴν ἄνω φανῆναι δυνήσῃ πόλιν" εἰ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα τοῦτο ἀπείρηται, πολλῷ 
μᾶλλον ἐκεῖ. 

1 Thid. Exposit. Psalm. v. (Bened. vol. v. p. 36, C 2.) Εἰ τὰ νεκρὰ σώματα 
ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καταθάπτομεν' πολλῴ μᾶλλον τοὺς τὰ νεκρὰ ῥήματα, Kai 
τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐκφέροντας, καὶ οὐδὲ συσκιάσαι βουλομένους, πόῤῥω που 
κατοικίζειν χρή. 

m Tbid. Hom. xvii. de Fide. See note (f), p. 376. Vid. Macar. Hom. xxx. 
sect. v. (Lips. 1714. p. 416.) “Ὥσπερ ὁ νεκρὸς ἀχρεῖος, καὶ ὅλως μὴ χρησι- 





, ~ 2 - 2 e ‘ ‘ ? , ? a rare το nN Ἢ ‘ 
μευὼων TOLC EKEL ἔστι διὸ Kat ἐκκομίζουσιν αὐτὸν ἕξω τῆς TOAEWC και ΚαΤα- 
τίθενται: οὕτως καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ, ἡ μὴ φέρουσα τὴν ἐπουράνιον τοῦ θεϊκοῦ 

Fes tts a faa ; ; 
φωτὸς εἰκόνα, THY ζωὴν τῆς ψυχῆς, ὥσπερ ἀδόκιμος καὶ πάντῃ ἀπόβλητος 
τυγχάνει. 


παρ. 1. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 379 


open field. For, speaking of the grave of his grandfather, he 
says", ‘It was a field where he lay buried, filled with funeral 
ashes and the bodies of the dead, in the road and suburbs of 
the city Arverne.” And after this, the Council of Braga (an. 
563) speaks of it again® as a privilege, even then firmly re- 
tained in the cities of France, that no corpse whatsoever was 
buried within the walls of any of their cities: and they make 
use of this as an argument, why no one should be buried in 
any chureh in Spain: of which more by and by. In the mean- 
while, if we look into Afric, in the time of St. Austin (an. 401), 
we find, by an order made in the fifth Council of Carthage, 
against the Donatists, that it was then the custom to bury still 
in the fields and highways. For the Donatists so buried the 
Circumeellions, their pretended martyrs, erecting them tombs, 
in the fashion of altars, to be their memorials. Upon which 
account, that Council ordered”, ‘“‘ That such altars that were 
so erected by the roads or in the fields, as monuments of mar- 
tyrs, in which it could not be proved that the bodies, or relics, 
of true martyrs were reposed, should be demolished, if it were 
possible, by the bishops of the respective sees in whose dioceses 
they were found.” Which was not so ordered, because they 
were buried in the fields or highways (for that was agreeable 
to the law made by Theodosius not long before) ; but because 
it was doubtful whether they were true martyrs or not. For 
neither the Catholics nor Donatists did then generally pretend 
to bury either in cities or in churches; but only some few of 
the Circumeellions, who were the fiercer and hotter part of 
them, in spite of all laws, buried some of their pretended mar- 


n Sidon. lib. iii. ep. xii. (Paris. 1609. p. 606.) Avi mei tumulum, hesterno 
(proh dolor !) die, pene manus profana temeraverat. Sed Deus adfuit, ne nefas 
tantum perpetraretur. Campus autem ipse dudum refertus tam bustualibus 
fayillis, quam cadaveribus, nullam jam diu serobem recipiebat, ete. 

© Cone. Braear. II. ¢. xviii. Firmissimum hoe privilegium usque nune manet 
[retinent] Galliz civitates, ut nullo modo intra ambitus murorum civitatum 
cujuslibet defuncti corpus humetur [sit humatum,] ete. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 842.) 

P Cone. Carth. V. ec. xiv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1217.) Placuit, ut ultaria, quee 
passim per agros aut vias, tamquam memorize martyrum constituuntur, in 
quibus nullum corpus aut reliquize martyrum condite probantur, ab episcopis, 
qui eisdem locis przesunt, si fieri potest, evertantur. 


880 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


tyrs in the churches: but even these, as Optatus tells us4, 
“were taken up again and cast out, because it was not lawful 
to bury any corpse in the house of God.” This is the first 
instance of any, that I remember, being buried in churches; 
and then it was contradicted by the bishop of the place, by 
whose order they were cast out. No alteration, as yet, was 
made in the law against burying in churches. For Justinian, 
who cut off the former part of Theodosius’s law against bury- 
ing in cities, retained still the latter part against burying in 
churches, inserting it into his Code™: “ Let no one think that 
the places of the apostles and martyrs are allowed to bury 
human bodies in.” And long after this, the prohibition con- 
tinued to the time of Charles the Great, though with some 
exceptions in favour of some eminent persons; as we shall see 
in the sequel of the story, examining by what steps and degrees 
the contrary custom came into the Church. J 


Srecr. V.—The first Step made toward Burying in Churches 
was the Building of Churches over the Graves of the Martyrs 
in the Country, or else translating their Relics into the City 
Churches. 


The first thing that gave occasion to any to think of burying 
in churches, was the particular honour that was done to mar- 
tyrs in the fourth century, when the graves or monuments 
where they lay buried, and where the Christians had used to 
assemble in times of persecution formerly, for the worship of 
God, had now churches erected over them in the country: or 
else their ashes and remains were translated into the city, and 
deposited in churches; and many times new churches were 


4 Optat. lib. iii, (Du Pin, 1702. p. 60.) (p. 71. edit. Paris. 1679.) In loco 
Octavensi occisi sunt plurimi, detruneati sunt multi: quorum corpora usque in 
hodiernum, per dealbatas aras aut mensas potuerunt numerari. Ex quorum 
numero quum aliqui in Basilicis sepeliri ccepissent, Clarus presbyter in loco 
Subbulensi, ab episcopo suo coactus est, ut insepultam faceret sepulturam. 
Unde proditum est, mandatum fuisse fieri, quod factum est, quando nee sepul- 
tura in domo Dei exhiberi concessa est. 

* Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 11. de Ecclesiis, leg. ii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 6.) 
Nemo apostolorum vel martyrum sedem humanis (leg. humandis) corporibus 
existimet esse concessam. 


Cuar. 1. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 381 


erected in the places were they were laid, thence called ‘ mar- 
tyria, propheteia, apostolea,’ from ‘the martyrs, prophets, or 
apostles,’ whose remains were translated into them. ‘This was 
so much the knowa practice of the fourth century, that I need 
not stand to give any particular instances of it, but only remark 
in general, that it had so much the approbation of the Church 
in that age, as that no such kind of ‘ martyria,’ or ‘ churches,’ 
were to be builded, unless the remains of some approved mar- 
tyrs were reposited in them. Which appears from a canon of 
the fifth Council of Carthage’, forbidding any memorials of 
martyrs to be accepted as such, unless either the body or the 
relics of a martyr were certainly known to be deposited there. 
But then this was nothing to burying in churches, but only an 
honour paid to the ashes of the martyrs, who had been dead 
and buried, it may be, some hundreds of years before; and 
cannot so properly be called a ‘burying in churches,’ as a 
‘building of churches,’ and new erecting them in the ancient 
burying-places of the dead. But whatever it was, it was a 
peculiar privilege of the martyrs to have their remains thus 
reposited in the body of the church: the laws forbade it still 
to all others, and the greatest persons had not this honour and 
favour allowed them, to be interred in the same place where 
the remains of the martyrs were reposed. 


Secr. VI.—The next was allowing Kings and Emperors to be 
buried in the Atrium, or ‘ Porch, and outer Buildings of the 
Church. 


But kings and emperors had, in this age, a peculiar pri- 
vilege above the rest of men, to be buried in the ‘atrium,’ or 
‘church-porch,’ or some other of the outer buildings of the 
church. Eusebius says‘, ‘‘ Constantine had desired to be 


5. Cone. Carth. V. ¢. xiv. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1218.) Omnino nulla memoria 
martyrum probabiliter acceptetur, nisi aut ibi corpus, aut aliquze reliquize sint, 
ete.—Note. These relics were buried under the altar, not kept above ground 
upon the altar: for Mabillon says, no relics were set upon the altar to the tenth 
century.—Liturg. Gallicana, lib. i. ¢. ix. n. iv. 

t Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iv. ¢. Ixxi. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 464, C 7.) 
(Reading, 1720. p. 668, 7.) Τὰ σπουδασθέντα αὐτῷ σὺν τῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων 
κατηξιοῦτο μνήμῃ; κ. τ. A. 


382 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


buried near the apostles, whose memorial he had honoured 
by building a church called by their names.” But this was 
not understood to be a desire to be buried in the church itself, 
but only in the porch before the church. And so far Constan- 
tius, his son, fulfilled his will, as Chrysostom more than once 
informs us. ‘“ His son,” says he", “ thought he did his father 
Constantine a very great honour, to bury him in the fisher- 
man’s porch. And what porters are to the emperors in their 
own palaces, the same are the emperors to the fishermen in 
their graves. The apostles, as masters of the place, have their 
residence within; but the emperor’s ambition proceeds no 
further, than as neighbours and attendants, to take possession 
of the porch before the church.” Again, in another place, 
speaking of the same matter’, ‘“ At Constantinople, they that 
wear the diadem, take it for a favour to be buried, not close by 
the apostles, but in the porch without the church: and kings 
are the fishermen’s door-keepers.”. Thus also Theodosius 
Senior, and Arcadius, and Theodosius Junior, are said, by 
some historians, to be buried¥. Which is probable enough, 
though the ancient historians, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theo- 
doret, say nothing of it. Hitherto, then, for five hundred 
years we see the generality of Christians were still buried 
without the city, and only kings and emperors allowed to be 
buried within the city; and yet this not in the church, but 
only in the ‘atrium’ or churchyard, or in the porch, or other 
outer buildings of the church. 


ἃ Chrysostom. Hom. xxvi. in 2 Cor. (Bened. 1718. vol. x. p. 625, C 7.) 
Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν μέγαν μεγάλῃ τιμῇ τιμᾷν ἐνόμισεν ὁ παῖς, εἰ τοῖς mpo- 
θύροις κατάθοιτο τοῦ ἁλιέως" καὶ ὕπερ εἰσὶν οἱ πυλωροὶ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἐν 
τοῖς βασιλείοις, τοῦτο ἐν τῷ σήματι οἱ βασιλεῖς τοῖς ἁλιεῦσι: καὶ οἱ μὲν, 
ὥσπερ δεσπόται τοῦ τύπου, ἔνδον κατέχουσιν, οἱ δὲ, ὡς πάροικοι καὶ γεί- 
τονες, ἠγάπησαν τὴν αὐλείαν αὐτοῖς ἀφορισθῆναι θύραν. 

VY Ibid. lib. Quod Christus sit Deus, (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. ὅ70, D 2.) Ἐν 
τῇ Κωνσταντινουπόλει, οὐδὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐγγὺς, ἀλλὰ παρ᾽ αὐτὰ 
τὰ πρόθυρα ἔξω ἀγαπητὸν εἶναι ἐνόμισαν οἱ τὰ διαδήματα περικείμενοι τὰ 
σώματα αὐτῶν κατορύττεσθαι, καὶ γεγόνασι θυρωροὶ λοιπὸν τῶν ἁλιέων οἱ 
βασιλεῖς. 

w Niceph. lib. xiv. ¢. viii. Θεοδόσιος δ᾽ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐν τῇ πατρῴᾳ θήκῃ 
ἐτέθαπτο, κατὰ τὸ δεξιὸν ὑπερῷον τοῦ τῶν ἀποστόλων σηκοῦ, ἐν λίθῳ 
Ῥωμαίῳ, ᾧ δηλαδὴ ὑπερῴῳ τῷ ἴσῳ λίθῳ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ᾿Αρκάδιος καὶ ἡ 
μήτηρ Εὐδοξία, καὶ ὁ πάππος αὐτοῦ Θεοδόσιος κατετέθησαν. 


Cuap. I. § 7. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 883 


Secr. VII.—Then the People, in the Sixth Century, began to be 
admitted into the Churchyards, but not into the Church. 


In the beginning of the sixth century, the people also seem 
to have been admitted to the same privilege of being buried in 
the ‘atrium,’ or churchyard before the church: but still they 
were forbidden, by laws both ecclesiastical and civil, to bury in 
the church. For Justinian, in his new Code, dropping the 
former part of Theodosius’s law, which obliged all people to 
bury without the city, still retains the latter clause *, which 
forbids men to be buried in the seats of the martyrs and 
apostles. And about the year 563, the first Council of Braga’, 
in Spain, allows men to be buried, if need require, in the 
churchyard under the walls of the church, but utterly forbids 
any to be buried within: giving this reason for it, “ That the 
cities of France still retained the ancient privilege firm, to 
suffer no dead body to be buried within the walls of the city ; 
and therefore it was much more reasonable, that this respect 
should be paid to the venerable martyrs.” We may conclude 
hence, as we have done before, that at this time, in France, 
they were so far from allowing burials in the church, that as 
yet they did not suffer any corpse to be buried in the church- 
yard, no, nor any where within the walls of the city. But 
some time after, about the year 658, or 895, when the Council 
of Nantes was held (chronologers are not exactly agreed about 
the time”), the people of France were also permitted to bury 
in the churchyard, or in the porch, or in the ‘exedrze,’ or 


χ Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. ii, de Eccles. leg. ii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 6.) Nemo 
apostolorum vel martyrum sedem humandis corporibus existimet esse con- 
cessam. 

y Cone. Bracar. II. 6. xviii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 842.) Corpora defunctorum 
nullo modo in basilica sanctorum sepeliantur: sed si necesse est, deforis circa 
murum basilieze usque adeo non abhorret. Nam si firmissimum hoc privile- 
gium usque nune manet civitates [Gallize], ut nullo modo intra ambitum 
murorum cujuslibet defuncti corpus humetur ; quanto magis hoc venerabilium 
martyrum reyerentia debet obtinere ? 

z Conc. Namnet. e. vi. (Labbe, vol. ix. p. 770.) Prohibendum etiam, secun- 
dum majorum instituta, ut in ecclesia nullatenus sepeliantur, sed in atrio, aut 
in porticu, aut in ewedris ecclesiw. [N.B. Labbe reads eatra ecclesiam.] Intra 
ecclesiam vero, et prope altare, ubi corpus et sanguis Domini conficitur, nulla- 
tenus [sepeliantur] habeat licentiam sepeliendi. 


384 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


‘outer buildings of the church,’ but not within the church 
itself, and near the altar where the body and blood of Christ is 
consecrated. This rule is again repeated in the Council of 
Arles *, and the Council of Mentz, held an. 813, in the time 
of Charles the Great, out of which that emperor made a rule 
in his Capitulars °, to the same purpose. Not to insist upon 
the uncertain canon of the ‘ Concilium Varense,’ as it is called 
in Gratian*, which is a repetition of the canon of Nantes; 
we may add to these the rule made in the Council of Tribur °, 
another synod in the time of Charles the Great: “ Let no 
layman, for the future, be buried in the church: yet such 
bodies as are already buried there, may not be cast out, 
but the pavement shall be so made over the graves, that no 
footstep of a grave shall appear. And if this cannot, without 
great difficulty, be done for the multitude of corpses lately 
buried there, let the place be turned into a ‘ polyandrium,’ or 
‘cemetery,’ and let the altar be removed thence, and set in 
some other place, where the sacrifice may be religiously offered 
to God.” While these laws were thus made in the West, 
giving men liberty to bury in cities and churchyards, but 
still restraining them, in a great measure, from burying in 
churches; Leo Sapiens, in the East, about the year 900, 
abrogated all the old laws against burying in cities, and left 
men at perfect lberty to bury within the walls or without the 
walls of any city’; but still says nothing of any license to bury 


a Cone. Arelat. IIT. 6. xxi. De sepeliendis mortuis in Basilicis illa constitutio 
servetur, quze ab antiquis patribus constituta est. 

Ὁ Cone. Mogunt. ¢. lii. See following note (g). 

¢ Carol. Capitular. lib. i, ¢. clix. ap. Lindenbrog. Leg. Antiq. Nullus deinceps 
in ecclesia mortuum sepeliat. 

ἃ Gratian. Caus. xiii. queest. ii. 6. xv. 

© Cone. Tribur. 6. xvii. (Labbe, vol. ix. p. 450.) Przecipimus, ut deinceps 
nullus laicus in ecclesia sepeliatur. ... Corpora antiquitus in ecclesia sepulta, 
nequaquam projiciantur, sed pavimento desuper facto, nullo tumulorum vestigio 
apparente, ecclesize reverentia conservetur. Ubi vero hoe prez multitudine 
cadaverum difficile sit facere, locus ille coemeterium et polyandrium habeatur, 
ablato inde altari et constituto ubi religiose sacrificium Deo valeat offerri. 

f Leo, Nov. lili. Ne igitur ullo modo inter civiles leges heee lex recenseatur, 
sancimus: quin potius, ut a consuetudine recte contemnitur, sic etiam decreto 
nostro prorsus reprobatur. Quicumque autem sive extra muros, sive intra 
civitatem, sepelire mortuos volet, perficiendze voluntatis facultatem habeto. 


5 


Cuar. I. 8 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 295 


in churches. So that it is evident, beyond all contradiction, 
that hitherto there was no general licence granted by any 
laws in any part of the world, authorizing all sorts of persons 
to bury in churches, without distinction, but many of the laws 
in this interval run peremptorily and universally against it. 


Secr. VIII.—And in this Period of Time, Kings, Bishops, 
Founders of Churches, and other Eminent Persons, were, by 
some Laws, allowed to be buried in Churches. 


Yet some laws, within this period of time, were made with 
some limitations and exceptions, in the case of great and 
eminent persons, such as kings, and bishops, and founders of 
churches, and presbyters, and such of the laity as were singu- 
larly conspicuous and honourable for their exemplary sanctity 
and virtue. ‘The Council of Mentz mentioned before, qualifies 
the general prohibition with this exception; saying *%, ‘‘ None 
shall be buried in the church, except bishops, and abbots, and 
worthy presbyters, and faithful laymen.” And the Council of 
Tribur", only forbidding laymen to be buried in the church, 
may be supposed to allow it to the clergy. And this honour 
was paid to bishops and emperors some time before. For 
Socrates says‘, ‘‘ Proclus removed the body of St. Chrysostom 
from Comana to Constantinople, and laid it in the Church of 
the Apostles.” And Evagrius speaks of it as customary to 
bury the emperors and clergy in the Church of the Apostles, 
built by Justinian, at Constantinople’. This honour, likewise, 
was paid to founders of churches: they were allowed to be 


& Cone. Mogunt. ¢. lii. (Labbe, vol. vii. p. 1252.) Nullus mortuus intra 
ecclesiam sepeliatur, nisi episcopi, aut abbates, aut digni presbyteri, aut fideles 
laici. 

h Cone. Tribur. 6. xvii. See above, note (6). 

i Soerat. lib. vii. ὁ. xlv. (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. p. 315, C 5.) (Reading, 1720. 
p- 393.) Τὸ σῶμα ᾿Ιωάννου ἐν Κομάνοις τεθαμμένον, βασιλέα πείσας, τρια- 
κοστῷ πέμπτῳ ἔτει μετὰ τὴν καθαίρεσιν, εἰς τὴν Κωνσταντίνου πόλιν μετε- 
κόμισε' καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς τιμῆς, δημοσίᾳ πομπεύσας αὐτὸ, εἰς τὴν ἐπώνυμον 
τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐκκλησίαν ἀπέθετο. 

} Evagr. lib. iv. ο. xxxi. (Amstel. 1695. p. 406, D 3.) (Reading, 1720. p. 412, 
13.) Εἴργαστο αὐτῷ ὁ τῶν θεσπεσίων ἀποστόλων νηὸς, οὐκ ἐθέλων ἑτέρῳ 
τὰ πρωτεῖα διδόναι: ἐν ᾧ οἵτε βασιλεῖς, οἵτε ἱερωμένοι, τῆς νενομισμένης 
ταφῆς τυγχάνουσι. 

ΜΟΙ whl. ce 


386 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


interred in their own structures. As Sozomen* says the 
wife of one Czesarius was buried in the church near the 
‘ambon,” or ‘ reading-desk,’ because her husband had been the 
founder of it. And Valesius thinks that Constantine was 
therefore buried in the Church of the Apostles, because it was 
built by him. So he had a double title to this privilege, both 
as emperor and founder. But we may observe a difference 
between Constantine’s age and this. In Constantine’s time, 
an emperor and a founder was buried only in the porch: but 
in the time of Sozomen, any ordinary founder might be buried 
in the middle of the church. 


Sect. [X.—The Matter at last left to the Discretion of Bishops 
and Presbyters, who should or should not be buried in Churches. 
Hereditary Sepulchres not yet allowed in the Ninth Century, 
but brought in by the Popes’ Decretals. 


Thus the thing went on from one degree to another, taking 
various steps and motions, partly by permission and relaxation 
of the laws, and partly by transgression of the laws, and con- 
nivance in those who had the execution of them. And the 
matter at last was left, in a great measure, to the discretion 
of bishops and presbyters to determine who should or should 
not be buried in churches, according to the merit and desert 
of the persons who desired it. In the ninth century, in 
France, some families began to set up a claim to hereditary 
sepulchres in the church; but this was opposed, and the 
Council of Meaux (an. 845) made an order!, ‘“‘ That no one 
should pretend to bury any corpse in the church upon here- 
ditary right, but the bishops and presbyters should judge who 
were worthy of this favour, according to the quality of their 
life and conversation.” And after this we find some laws 
made, in general, against burying in churches: as that of the 


kK Sozomen. lib. ix. 6. ii. (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. p. 649, B 8.) (Reading, 
p- 367, 35.) Μέμνημαι παρατυχὼν τῇ ταφῇ τῆς Καισαρίου γαμετῆς" καὶ 
ἀναλογιζόμενος ἐκ τῆς πέλας παρακειμένης λεωφόρου, εἰκάζω αὐτὴν κεῖσθαι 
περὶ τὸν ἄμβωνα:' βῆμα δὲ τοῦτο τῶν ἀναγνωστῶν. , 

1 Cone. Meldens. 6. Ixxii. (Labbe, vol. vii. p. 1841.) Nemo quemlibet mor- 
tuum in ecclesia, quasi hzereditario jure, nisi quem episcopus, aut presbyter pro 
qualitate conversationis et vitee dignum duxerit, sepelire praesumat. 


Cua. 1. § 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 387 


Council of Winchester, under Lanfranc, archbishop of Canter- 
bury (an. 1076™), ‘‘ Let no bodies of the dead be buried in 
churches.” But so many exceptions had been made to the 
old laws, that it was no hard matter for any one who had 
ambition or superstition enough to think that he should be 
much benefited in his death, by being buried in the church, to 
obtain this privilege. And these two reasons opened the way 
to greater liberties by far than the ancient canons had allowed: 
for an opinion, that it was of great service to men’s souls to be 
buried in the church, made men more eager than ever to 
obtain this privilege at their death. And Pope Leo III. had 
made a decree, which Gregory IX. inserted into his Decretals?, 
giving a sort of hereditary right to all persons to be buried 
in the sepulchres of their ancestors, according to the example, 
as it is said, of the ancient patriarchs.. This was about the 
year 1230. Not long after which, Boniface VIII.° speaks 
of it as a customary thing for men to be buried in the church, 
in the sepulchres of their ancestors. So that from these 
Deeretals, I think, may be dated the ruin of the old laws: for 
they took away that little power that was left in the hands of 
bishops to let people bury in the church or not bury, as they 
should judge proper, in their discretion, and put the right and 
possession of burying-places in the church into the hands of 
private families. And others, who had no such right, being 
led by their ambition or superstition, could then easily pur- 
chase a right to be buried in the church, which was a thing 
that emperors themselves did not pretend to ask in former 
ages. I have been the more curious in deducing the history 
of this matter from first to last, because the innovation has 
been thought a grievance to some very learned and judicious 
men, and what they could have wished to have seen rectified 
at or since the Reformation. ‘This custom,” says the learned 


m Cone. Vinton. an. 1076. c. ix. (Labbe, vol. x. p. 352, A 8.) In ecclesiis 
corpora defunctorum non sepeliantur. 

n Gregor. Decretal. lib. iii. tit. xxviii, de Sepulturis, ο. i. (Corp. Jur. Can. 
Pithoeus, p. 164.) Statuimus unumquemque in majorum suorum sepulchris 
jacere, ut Patriarcharum exitus docet. 

© Sext. Decretal. lib. iii. tit. xii. de Sepulturis, 6. ii. (Corp. Jur. Can. p. 322.) 
Quum quis, cujus majores sunt soliti ab antiquo in aliqua ecclesia sepeliri, ete. 


ce 2 


388 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


Rivet ’, “‘ which covetousness and superstition first brought in, 
I wish it were abolished, with other relics of superstition, 
among us; and that the ancient custom was revived, to have 
public burying-places in the free and open fields without the 
gates of cities. This would be more convenient for civil uses 
also ; because in close places the air cannot but be affected 
with the nauseous smell of dead bodies: there is no good done 
by it to the dead, and the living are in manifest danger by it, 
especially in the time of contagious distempers, when infected 
bodies are promiscuously buried in churches, wherein men 
daily meet and assemble together: a thing,” says he, ‘“ which, 
not without reason, has ever appeared horrible to me and 
many others.” The like complaint is made by some among 
the Romanists, particularly by Durantus4, who was an eminent 
lawyer, and president of the parliament of Toulouse. He 
commends the piety of the ancients for not allowing the dead 
to be buried in the church; and Charles the Great, for 
reviving and restoring the primitive institution, when it had 
been in some measure neglected: and withal speaks it with 
great regret, that whereas heretofore emperors were buried 
only in the church-porch, now the custom is to let the 
meanest of the people commonly be buried in the church 
itself, against the laws and institutions of the ancient 
Christians. To which, after this digression, I must now 
return again. 


P Rivet. in Gen. xlvii, Exercitat. clxxii. p. 842. (p. 656, Roterod. 1651.) 
Hune morem quem invexit avaritia et superstitio, valde vellem apud nos, cum 
aliis superstitionum reliquiis, esse abolitum, et pristinam consuetudinem revo- 
cari, ut sepulturze publicze in campo libero et aperto, extra civitatum portas, 
constituerentur. Id etiam convenientissimum esset usibus civilibus, quia in 
locis reclusis non potest aér non adfici tetro cadaverum odore, ita ut nec 
mortuis hac ratione consulatur; nec viventium pericula caveantur ; preesertim 
morborum contagiosorum tempore, quo promiscue cadavera pestifera conduntur 
templis, in quibus quotidie convenitur. Quod sane horrendum mihi et aliis 
Grotius (Lue. vol. vii. p. 12.) makes a like com- 
plaint: Quod in memoriam martyrum olim inductum, nescio an satis sapienter 


multis merito visum est. 





retineatur. 

4 Durant. de Ritib. Eccles. lib. i. c. xxiii. sect. v—vii. (Paris. 1632. p. 218.) 
Ea erat veterum patrum religio, cavere diligenter, ne intra Ecclesiam defunc- 
torum corpora sepelirentur. 


(τον I. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 389 


CHAPTER Il. 


SOME OTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE PLACE, AND 
MANNER, AND TIME OF BURYING. 


Srcr. I.—Consecration of Cemeteries not very ancient. 


Havine thus far considered, in general, the place of burying, 
I now proceed to some more particular observations concern- 
ing the place, and manner, and time of burying among 
Christians. And here the first question may be, Whether 
they used any formal consecration of their cemeteries as they 
did of their churches? Now, concerning this, in the first 
ages there is a perfect silence. No writer before Gregory of 
Tours, who lived about the year 570, makes any mention of 
it: but he says*, the burying-places in his time were used to 
be consecrated by sacerdotal benediction. Durantus> can 
trace the custom no higher: and therefore we may conclude, 
that about this time, and not before, it became the practice of 
the Church. For the sacredness of sepulchres, that we so 
often read of before this, was from another reason, and not 
from their former consecration. 


a Gregor. Turon. de Gloria Confessor. c. evi. (Paris. 1699. p. 986, B 9.) 
Quid faciemus, si episcopus urbis non advenerit? quia locus ille, quo sepeliri 
debet, non est sacerdotali benedictione consecratus. Tune cives et reliqui viri 
honorati, qui ad exsequias beatee Reginee convenerant, imperant parvitati mez, 
dicentes: ‘ Preesume de caritate fratris tui, et benedic altare illud. Confidimus 
enim de ejus benevolentia, quod molestum non ferat, si feceris, sed magis 
gratiam referat. Praesume, precamur, ut caro sancta sepulture reddatur.’ Et 
sic ab illis injunctus altare in cellula ipsa sacravi. 

b Durant. de Ritib. Eccles. lib. i. c. xxiii. n. ix. (Paris. 1632. p. 220.) Omnia 
ecemeteria consecrabantur, ab hisque potestas seecularis excludebatur. Ivo 
Carnotensis, epist. cexxix. Gregor. Turon. (de Gloria Confessor. c. evi.) testatur 
sepulchrorum loca sacerdotali benedictione consecrata fuisse. 


900 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Sror. I].— The Sacredness of them arising from another Reason, 
and not from their formal Consecration. 


For the heathens themselves were used to reckon these 
places sacred, and the violation of them a sort of sacrilege and 
violation of religion: as appears from the edicts of two heathen 
emperors, Gordian and Julian, which are still retained among 
the Christian laws. Gordian calls them things destined for 
religion, and things made a part of religion: and therefore 
orders’, that all robbers of graves should be prosecuted as 
criminals guilty of an injury done to religion. In like manner, 
Julian says“, ‘‘ The graves of the dead are consecrated hills ; 
and to move a stone hence, or disturb the ground, or break a 
turf, has always been accounted next to sacrilege by our fore- 
fathers. To steal away the ornaments from the tables or 
porticoes of graves is a piacular crime and violation of religion, 
to be punished as doing injury to the dead.” Justinian, in 
repeating this law of Julian in his Code 5, instead of ‘ poena 
Manium,’ reads it ‘pcena sacrilegii cohibentes,’ inflicting both 
the name and punishment of sacrilege expressly upon this 
crime. And so the ancient poet does in that distich,— 

Res ea sacra, miser; noli mea tangere fata: 
Sacrilegze bustis abstinuere manus, 
‘Touch not my monument, thou wretch: it is a sacred thing: 
even sacrilegious hands commonly abstain from offering vio- 
lence to the habitations of the dead. All which shows, that 
graves and burying-places were reckoned sacred things both 
by heathens and Christians, without any formal consecration : 


© Cod. Justin. lib. ix. tit. xix. de Sepulchro Violato, leg. i. (Amstelod. 1663. 
p- 296.) Res religioni destinatas, quin imo jam religionis (al. religiosas) effectas, 
scientes qui contigerint, et emere et distrahere non dubitaverint; tametsi jure 
venditio non subsistat, leesee tamen religionis inciderunt in crimen. 

4 Cod. Theod. lib, ix. tit. xvii. de Sepulchris Violatis, leg. v. (Lugd. 1663. 
vol. ili, p. 144.) Pergit audacia ad busta diem functorum, et aggeres conse- 
eratos: cum et lapidem hine movere, terram sollicitare, et cespitem yellere, 
proximum sacrilegio majores semper habuerint: sed ornamenta quidam tri- 
cliniis aut porticibus auferunt de sepulchris. Quibus primis consulentes ne in 
piaculum incidant, contaminata religione bustorum, hoe fieri prohibemus, poena 
Manium vindice cohibentes. 

© Cod. Justin. lib. ix. tit. xix. de Sepulchro Violato, leg. v. (p. 297.) 


Cuap. 11. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 391 


and the Romans accounted it a piece of impiety in any case to 
disturb or violate the ashes of the dead, except it were those 
of their public enemies, whose graves were not reckoned 
sacred, as Paulus‘, the great lawyer, determined: and there- 
fore it was lawful for any one to take the stones of such graves 
and turn them to any other use, and no action of violating 
sepulchres could be brought against them. 


Secr. Il].—The way of adorning Graves different among 
Heathens and Christians. 


But, in all other cases, the graves of the dead were places 
of great sacredness, and consequently places of great security : 
insomuch, that they were reckoned safe repositories not only 
for the dead, to secure them from violence, but also for any 
ornaments that were set about them, or riches that, together 
with the dead, were often buried with them. For the Romans 
often adorned their monuments with rich pillars of marble, and 
fine statues and images set about them: as appears from seve- 
ral laws in the Theodosian Code’, which are made to restrain 
the pillagers of them: and also from a great variety of Roman 
writers, which Gothofred" mentions and alleges in his com- 
ment upon one of those laws, as Pliny, Cicero, Aggenus, 
Propertius, Servius, and Eutropius ; who gives a particular 
account of Trajan’s pillar, which was one hundred and forty 


f Digest. lib. xlvii. tit. xii. de Sepulchro Violato, leg. iv. (Amstelod. 1663. 
p- 715.) Sepulchra hostium nobis religiosa non sunt: ideoque lapides, inde 
sublatos, in quemlibet usum convertere possumus. Non sepulehri violati actio 
competit. 

8. Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Sepulchris Violatis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 138.) Universi, qui de monumentis columnas vel marmora abstule- 
runt, vel coquendz ealcis gratia lapides dejecerunt, . . . singulas libras auri per 
singula sepulchra fisci rationibus inferant. ... Eadem etiam poena, qui dissipa- 
runt, vel ornatum minuerunt, teneantur, ete.—Leg. iv. p. 143. Qui eedificia 
Manium violant, domus, ut ita dixerim, defunctorum geminum yidentur facinus 
perpetrare: nam et sepultos spoliant destruendo, et vivos polluunt fabricando. 
Si quis igitur de sepulchro abstulerit saxa, vel marmora, vel columnas, aliamve 
quamcumque materiam, fabrice gratia, sive id fecerit venditurus, decem pondo 
auri cogatur inferre fisco; sive quis propria sepulchra defendens, hane in judi- 
cium querelam detulerit, sive quicumque alius accusaverit, vel Officium nun- 
tiaverit. 

h Gothofred. in leg. ii. p. 141. a fin. seq. 


392 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


feet high. The two Antonines, indeed, laid some restraint 
upon the excessive vanity and profuseness of the Romans in 
this matter, making severe laws against extravagance in bury- 
ing and building of sepulchres, as Julius Capitolinus' informs 
us; but this did not hinder men from adorning their monu- 
ments with marble statues and pillars, and suchlike common 
ornaments, as we afterwards find allowed in one of the laws of 
Gordian, in the Justinian Code *: so that these monuments of 
the heathen were often very pompous and magnificent both in 
building and ornament, which frequently made them become a 
prey and spoil to rapacious invaders. But we can hardly sup- 
pose this of any Christian sepulchres for the first three hundred 
years. Caius, an ancient writer and presbyter of the Church 
of Rome, about the year 210, speaks of the trophies and 
monunents of St. Peter and St. Paul!, which were then to be 
seen, the one in the Vatican, in the Via Triumphalis, and the 
other in the Via Ostiensis: but these trophies were not so 
magnificent, whatsoever they were, but that afterwards, about 
the year 258, they were translated by Pope Xystus™ into the 
catacombs, for fear of some indignity that might be offered to 
them in the heat of persecution. The most that we can sup- 
pose is, that they were gravestones, with an inscription, de- 
claring their names and character, and the time and manner 
of their death. And some of them, we are sure, were not so 
much as this: for sometimes great multitudes of martyrs were 
buried in one common graye; and then the inscription con- 
tained only the number, and not the names, or any particular 


1 Capitolin. Vit. Mare. Anton. (Lugd. Bat. 1661. p. 181.) Tune Antonini 
leges sepeliendi sepulchrorumque asperrimas sanxerunt: quandoquidem cave- 
runt, ne uti quis vellet fabricaret sepulchrum: quod hodieque servatur. 

K Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. xliv. de Religiosis et Sumtibus Funerum, leg. vii. 
(Amstel. 1663. p. 107.) Statuas sepulchro superimponere vel monumento quod 
[a te] extructum profiteris, ornamenta quee putas superaddere non prohiberis: 
quum jure suo eorum que minus prohibita sunt, unicuique facultas libera non 
denegetur. 

' Apud Euseb. lib. ii. 6. xxv. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 54, A 6.) (Reading, 
1720. p. 84, 5.) ᾿Εγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι: ἐὰν γὰρ 
θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανὸν, ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν πὴν ᾿ΩὩστίαν, εὑρήσεις 
τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. 

m See above, p. 375, note (6). 


Cuap. II. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 393 


account of them. Prudentius says", he had observed one such 
graye, wherein sixty martyrs were buried together. St. James’s 
monument at Jerusalem was no more than a pillar °, or grave- 
stone, with an inscription. And in after-ages the Christians 
were not very fond of erecting stately monuments before they 
came to bury in churches: for they had observed what spoil 
and ravagement had been made of the heathen monuments, 
and how many laws the emperors were forced to make against 
the violation of sepulchres ; which made many pious Christians 
think how much better and safer it was to build themselves 
monuments in their lifetime by liberality to the poor, than to 
build stately and costly monuments, for thieves and robbers to 
plunder at their pleasure. Thus St. Jerome says of Paula ?, 
-ς That she gave all her substance to the poor, and wished not 
to have any thing at her death, but that she might be beholden 
for a winding-sheet to the charity of others.” And Ephraim 
Syrus left it upon his will, that nothing should be expended 
upon his funeral, but whatever should be appointed for that 
should be given to the poor ; as Gregory Nyssen4 reports in 
the Life of that great saint and luminary of the Eastern 


n Prudent. Peristephan. hymn. xi. de Hippolyto, v. 5. (Bibl. V. P. Galland, 
vol. viii. p. 463.) 
Plurima literulis signata sepulchra loquuntur 
Martyris aut nomen, aut epigramma aliquod. 
Sunt et muta tamen, tacitas claudentia tumbas, 
Marmora, quee solum significant numerum. 
Quanta virum jaceant congestis corpora acervis 
Nosse licet, quorum nomina nulla legas. 
Sexaginta illic, defossas mole sub una, 
Reliquias memini me didicisse hominum. 
© Euseb. lib. ii. 6. xxiii. (Vales. 1695. p. 52, A 9.), calls it Στήλην᾽" ἔτι αὐτοῦ 
ἡ στήλη μένει παρὰ τῷ ναῷ. Hieronymus de Scriptor. Eccles. ¢. ii. (Venet. 
Vallars. vol. ii. p. 833.) Juxta templum, ubi preecipitatus fuerat, sepultus est. 
Titulum usque ad obsidionem Titi, et ultimam Hadriani, notissimum habuit. 
p Hieron. Epist. xxvii. in Epitaph. Paulie, 6. vii, (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. 
p. 690, ete.) 
a Nyssen. Vit. Ephraim. (Opp. Ephraim. Syri, Rome, 1732, fol. vol. i. 
p. xvii. B 2.) Μέλλων ὁ θεοφόρος οὗτος ἀνὴρ ἀπαίρειν πρὸς τὰ οὐράνια, 
τοῖς παροῦσι παρηγγυᾶτο, ὡς οὐκ ἐξὸν αὐτοῖς ἐσθῆτι πολυτελεῖ τὸ τούτου 





σῶμα ἐνταφιάσαι" εἰ δὲ καί τις φιλοπάτωρ ὧν τοιοῦτόν τι προνενόηκεν, ἢ 
παρητοίμασε, μηδαμῶς εἰς ἔργον τὴν βουλὴν ἀγαγεῖν" ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο, τὸ 
ὁρισθὲν εἰς τὴν ἐκείνου ταφὴν, δοθῆναι πτωχοῖς. 


8394 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Church. And St. Basil exhorts rich men in general rather to 
expend their superfluities in works of piety, than to build 
themselves costly sepulchres*: ‘“‘ For what need have you of 
a sumptuous monument or a costly entombing? What ad- 
vantage is there in a fruitless expense? Prepare your own 
funeral whilst you live. Works of charity and mercy are the 
funeral obsequies you can bestow upon yourself.” 


Secr. 1V.—They differed also in the Manner of Burying: the 
Heathens commonly burning the Body, and putting the Bones 
and Ashes in Urns ; but the Christians buried the Body whole 
in the Earth, abhorring the Heathen custom. 


Another difference between heathens and Christians was in 
the manner of burying. For the heathen, for the most part, 
burned the bodies of the dead in funeral piles, and then 
gathered up the bones and ashes, and put them in an urn 
above ground: but the Christians abhorred this way of bury- 
ing, and therefore never used it, but put the body whole into 
the ground ; or, if there was occasion for any other way of 
burying, they embalmed the body, to lay it in a catacomb, that 
it might not be offensive to them in such places, where they 
were sometimes forced to hold their religious assemblies. That 
the Christians used the plain and simple way of inhumation, 
and not burning, is evident from the objection of the heathen 
in Minucius’: ‘They abhor funeral piles, and condemn burn- 
ing by fire, for fear it should hinder their resurrection.” To 
which the Christian answers *, “‘ We do not, as ye suppose, 


r Basil. Hom. in Divites. (Bened. 1721. Paris. vol. ii. p. 61, D 7.) Τί μνήμα- 
Tog ἐπισήμου καὶ ταφῆς πολυτελοῦς, Kai δαπάνης ἀκερδοῦς ὄφελος :. .. 
καλὸν ἐντάφιον ἡ εὐσέβεια' πάντα περιβαλλόμενος ἄπελθε" οἰκεῖον κόσμον 
τὸν πλοῦτον ποίησαι" ἔχε αὐτὸν μετὰ σεαυτοῦ. 

5. Minue. (Paris. 1836. p. 454.) Anceps malum, et gemina dementia! Coelo 
et astris, quze sic relinquimus ut invenimus, interitum denuntiare ; sibi mortuis 
extinetis, qui sicut nascimur et interimus, eeternitatem repromittere! Inde 
videlicet et exsecrantur rogos, et damnant ignium sepulturas: quasi non omne 
corpus, etsi flammis subtrahatur, annis tamén et zetatibus in terram resolvatur, 
ete. 

Ὁ Ibid. (Paris. 1836. p. 463.) Corpus omne, sive arescit in pulverem, sive in 
humorem solvitur, vel in cinerem comprimitur, vel in nidorem tenuatur, sub- 
ducitur nobis: sed Deo elementorum custodia reservatur. Nec, ut creditis, 


1 


Cuap. 11. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 895 


fear any detriment from burying (by fire), but we retain the 
ancient custom of inhumation, as more eligible and commo- 
dious.” The same is evident from Tertullian, who says ", some 
of the heathen abstained from burning upon a superstitious 
notion, that the soul hovered over the body after death: and 
therefore they would not burn the body, out of a needless com- 
passion to the soul. ‘ But,” says he, “ our reason is piety and 
humanity to the body, not flattering it as the relics of the soul, 
but abhorring cruelty in respect to the body itself, forasmuch 
as no man deserves to be destroyed by a penal death.” In an- 
other place’, he derides the heathens for their contradictory 
customs : first, in burning the body with great barbarity, and 
then making feasts and sacrifices at their graves, by way of 
parentation, as they called it; which was to make the same 
fires both oblige them and offend them; to show themselves 
cruel, under the pretence of piety ; and insult them, by making 
feasts in behalf of those whom they had burnt before ——The 
critics are not agreed when or by what means this custom of 
burning was laid aside by the Romans: some think it was 
forbidden by the two Antonines, in their severe laws about 
funerals, mentioned before; but Gothofred and others, not 
without reason, think this a mistake, because not only Tertul- 
lian derides it as still customary among the heathen, but also 
because there is some intimation given in one of Theodosius’s 
laws*, that there were some remains of it even in his time: for 
he speaks of both customs; that is, of burying not only whole 
bodies in coffins under ground, but also of burying in urns 


ullum damnum sepulturze timemus, sed veterem et meliorem consuetudinem 
humandi frequentamus. 

u Tertul. de Anima, 6. li. (Paris. 1664. p. 301, C 7.) Propterea nee ignibus 
funerandum aiunt, parcentes superfluo animze. Alia est autem ratio pietatis 
istius, non reliquiis animze adulatrix, sed crudelitatis etiam corporis nomine 
ayersatrix, quod et ipsum homo non utique mereatur poenali exitu impendi. 

Vv Ibid. de Resurr. e. i. (ibid. p. 325, A 6.) Ego magis ridebo vulgus, tune 
quoque, quum ipsos defunctos atrocissime exurit, quos postmodum gulosissime 
nutrit; iisdem ignibus et promerens et offendens. Ὁ pietatem de crudelitate 
ludentem ! 

x Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Sepulchris Violatis, leg. vi. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 147.) Omnia quee supra terram urnis clausa, vel sarcophagis corpora 
detinentur, extra urbem delata ponantur, ete. 


396 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


above ground: which supposes the body to be burnt before,— 
and the remains only, the bones and the ashes, to be put in an 
urn, and kept above ground. However it is certain that this 
custom was quite worn out, even among the heathen, within 
the space of forty years after. For Macrobius, who lived in 
the time of the younger Theodosius, about the year 420, says 
expressly ¥, ‘‘ That the use or custom of burning the bodies 
of the dead was quite left off in that age, and all that he knew 
of it, was only from ancient reading.” It is most probable, 
that the heathen custom altered by degrees from the time of 
Commodus the emperor: for Commodus himself, and many of 
his friends, were buried by inhumation, and not by burning, as 
a learned person” observes out of Xiphilin: and from that 
time the custom of burning might decrease, till at last, under 
the Christian emperors, though without any law to forbid it, 
the contrary custom entirely prevailed, and this quite dwindled 
into nothing. But the Christians were always very tenacious 
of the plain way of burying by inhumation, and never would 
consent to use any other: reckoning it a great piece of bar- 
barity in their persecutors, whenever they denied them this 
decent interment after death, as they sometimes did, either by 
exposing their bodies to the fury of wild beasts and birds of 
prey, or burning them in scorn and derision of their doctrine 
of a future resurrection. Thus, Eusebius says, out of the 
Kpistle of the Church of Smyrna*, they treated Polyearp, at 
the instigation of the Jews, burning his body, according to 
their own custom ; after which the Christians were content to 
gather up his bones and bury them.—And so they treated the 
martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, in France, to the great grief of 


Υ Macrob. Saturnal. lib. vii. ὁ. vii. Licet urendi corpora defunctorum usus 
nostro szeculo nullus sit, lectio tamen docet eo tempore, quo igni dari honor 
mortuis habebatur, si quando usu venisset, ut plura corpora simul incenderen- 
tur, solitos fuisse funerum ministros denis virorum corporibus adjicere singula 
muliebria, ete. 

z Burnet’s Travels, Lett. iv. p. 210. 

a Kuseb. lib. iv. 6. xv. (Reading, 1720. p. 171, 13.) ᾿Ιδὼν οὖν ὁ ἑκατον- 
τάρχης THY τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων γενομένην φιλονεικίαν, θεὶς αὐτὸν ἐν μέσῳ, ὡς 
ἔθος αὐτοῖς, ἔκαυσεν. οὕτως τε ἡμεῖς ὕστερον ἀνελόμενοι τὰ τιμιώτερα λίθων 
πολυτελῶν καὶ δοκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ, ἀπεθέμεθα ὕπου καὶ 
ἀκόλουθον ἦν. 


παν. I. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 397 


the Christians, whom they would not allow to bury them, but 
for six days together kept them above ground, and then burned 
their bodies, and cast their ashes into the river Rhone, in 
despite to their belief of a resurrection : crying out, “‘ Now let 
us see whether they will rise again, and whether their God is 
able to deliver them out of our hands : as the same Eusebius” 
relates the story out of the Acts and Monuments of their 
Passion. Thus Maximus the president threatened Tharacus 
the martyr’, “That though he raised himself upon the con- 
fidence that his body, after death, should be embalmed and 
buried, he would defeat his hopes, by causing his body to be 
burnt, and sprinkling his ashes before the wind.” And it 
were easy to give other examples of the like usage of them 
upon such occasions, some of which are related by the heathen 
historian himself, not without some resentment and reflec- 
tion upon the unnatural cruelty and inhumanity of such 
proceedings. 


Ὁ Euseb. lib. v. ο. i. (Reading, 1720. p. 210, 24.) Τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐν 

μεγάλῳ καθειστήκει πένθει, διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὰ σώματα κρύψαι τῇ γῇ. 
. τὰ οὖν σώματα τῶν μαρτύρων παντοίως παραδειγματισθέντα καὶ 

αἰθριασθέντα ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἕξ, μετέπειτα καέντα καὶ αἰθαλωθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἀνόμων κατεσαρώθη εἰς τὸν Ῥοδανὸν ποταμὸν πλησίον παραῤῥέοντα, ὕπως 
μὴ δὲ λείψανον αὐτῶν φαίνηται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔτι. καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἔπραττον, ὡς 
δυνάμενοι νικῆσαι τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἀφελέσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν παλιγγενεσίαν" . .. 
νῦν ἴδωμεν εἰ ἀναστήσονται, καὶ εἰ δύναται βοηθῆσαι αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς αὐτῶν, 
καὶ ἐξελέσθαι ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ἡμῶν. 

© Acta Tharaci ap. Baron. an. 290. n. xxi. (Lucee, vol. iii. p. 259.) (n. xxiii. 
ed. Antverp. 1617.) (Antverp. 1597. vol. iii. p. 683.) Przeses dixit, Nonne sic 
te perdam, et sicut antea preedixi, et reliquias tuas? ne mulierculz in lintea- 
mine corpus tuum involvant, et unguentis et odoribus adornent. Sed, sceleste, 
jubebo te comburi, et cineres tuos in ventum dispergam. 

ἃ Ammian. Marcellin. lib. xxii. (Ernesti, Lipsixe, 1773. p. 261.) Quo non 
contenta multitudo immanis, dilaniata cadavera peremtorum camelis imposita 
vexit ad littus: iisdemque subdito igne crematis, cineres projecit in mare, id 
metuens ut clamabat, ne collectis supremis, zedes illis exstruerentur ut reliquis, 
qui deviare a religione compulsi, pertulere cruciabiles poenas, adusque glorio- 
sam mortem intemerata fide progressi, et nunc martyres appellantur. 


398 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Sect. V.—Embalming of Bodies much used by Christians ; and 
why more by them than the Heathens. 


From the last instance of the president’s threatening the 
martyr Tharacus that he should not be embalmed, it were easy 
to infer, that the custom of Christians was to bestow the 
honour and charge of embalming commonly upon their mar- 
tyrs, at least, if not upon others. But the custom seems to 
have been more general: for the heathen, in Minucius*, makes 
it a matter of reproach to Christians universally, that they 
would make use of no odours for their bodies whilst they 
lived, but reserved all costly ointments for their funerals. And 
Tertullian seems to intimate‘, that the preparation of the body 
for its funeral with odoriferous spices, was the general practice 
of Christians. ‘It is true,” says he, ‘“‘we buy no frankin- 
cense ; but if Arabia complains of this, let the Sabeans know, 
that more of their costly wares is spent in burying of Chris- 
tians, than the heathens spend in their temples in offering 
incense to their gods.” One of the chief ingredients in this 
unction of the body, or embalming, was myrrh: whence Pru- 
dentius, alluding to the custom, says®, ‘“ The Sabean myrrh 
anointing the body, by its medicinal virtue, preserves it from 
corruption.” This was the particular use and virtue of myrrh, 
as Grotius" observes out of Pliny; and therefore? he tells us 


© Minue. p. 35. (p. 38. edit. Hal.) Non corpus odoribus honestatis, reservatis 
unguenta funeribus. 

f Tertul. Apol. ὁ. xlii. (Paris. 1664. p. 34, B 2.) Tura plane non emimus. 
Si Arabi queruntur, scient Sabzei, pluris et carioris suas merces Christianis ὦ 
sepeliendis profligari, quam diis fumigandis.—Vid. de Idololatria, ¢. xi. (p. 91, 
C 10.) Sane, non illa principalis idololatria? Viderint, si eedem merces, tura 
dico et cetera peregrinitatis ad sacrificium idolorum etiam hominibus ad pig- 
menta medicinalia, nobis quoque insuper ad solatia sepulturze usui sunt. 
Acta Euplii ap. Baron, an. 303. n. exlix. (Luez, vol. iii. p. 373.) Sublatum est 
postea corpus ejus a Christianis, et conditum aromatibus, sepultum est. 

8 Prudent. Cathemerin. Hymn. in Exsequiis Defunctorum. (Bibl. P. Galland. 
vol. viii. p. 535.) 





Adspersaque myrrha Sabzeo 
Corpus medicamine servat. 
h Grot. in Matth. ii. 11. (Opp. Lond. 1679. vol. ii. p. 19.) Myrrhze vix alius 
usus est, quam ut corpora incorrupta conservet, ut nos Plinius docet. 
[i Not. Nulla apud Grotium, 1. 6. (nee Joan. xix. 39.) mentio habetur Hero- 
doti, nee eorum que hie ex eo adferuntur.—Grischov. ] 


Cuap. II. ὃ 5. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 399 


further, out of Herodotus alsoj, “That the Eastern nations 
were wont to make use of myrrh to embalm the bodies of the 
dead.” And that the Jews used an unction as a preparation 
for burial, is infallibly certain, in general, both from the testi- 
mony of our Saviour, given to the woman who anointed his 
body to the burial, and also from what St. John says, in par- 
ticular, of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, “ That they 
brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound 
weight, and took the body of Jesus, and wound it in the linen 
clothes, with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” 
(John xix. 39.) From hence, most probably, the Christians 
took their intimation of paying the same respect to the bodies 
of the dead. The ancients also were of opinion, that there 
was something mystically denoted in the presents made by the 
Wise men to our Saviour at his birth, when they presented 
him with gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh: gold, as to a 
king ; frankincense, as to God; and myrrh, as to a man that 
must die and be buried. For though they might intend none 
of these things, yet the Holy Ghost might direct these pre- 
sents to be such as might signify all these things without their 
knowledge, as he directed Mary’s anointing of Christ to his 
burial ; for so our Lord himself was pleased to interpret and 
accept it, though perhaps that was not particularly in her 
intention. It is certain, that this was the general notion of 
the ancients concerning the myrrh presented to our Saviour : 
as Maldonat*, from Irenzeus, Cyprian, Origen, Basil, Gregory 


j Herodot. lib. ii. 6. Ixxxvi. (Schweigh. vol. i. p. 357.) "Ἔπειτα τὴν νηδὺν 
σμύρνης ἀκηράτου τετριμμένης, καὶ κασίης, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θυωμάτων, πλὴν 
λιβανωτοῦ, πλήσαντες, συῤῥάπτουσι ὀπίσω. 

k Maldonat. in Matth. ii. 11. (Lugd. 1607. p. 57.) ‘ Obtulerunt el munera, 
aurum, thus, et myrrham:’ Quibus Orientales abundant, quamquam nolim 
mysterium excludere, quod omnes hie veteres auctores tanto consensu cognove- 
runt, ut regi aurum, Deo thus, homini myrrha data sint. Minus enim mysterii 
esse videbatur, quod mulier illa unguento Christum perfudisset, quod nihilo- 
minus erat apud Orientales usitatum, tamen Christus ad significandam suam 
sepulturam, de qua nihil fortasse mulier cogitabat, factum dixit, Matth. xxvi. 12. 
Hujus autem mysterii etsi non Christum, quia nihil eum de Magis loquutum 
legimus, tamen omnes veteres auctores interpretes habemus, Irenzeum, lib. iii. 
6. x.; Cypr. Serm. de Stella et Magis ; Orig. lib. i. cont. Celsum ; Basil. homil. 
de Humana Christi Generatione ; Gregor. Nyssen. hom. de Christi Nativit. ; 
Chrysost. hom, in varios Evangelistas ; Ambros. lib. i. de Fide, 6. ii; Aug. 


400 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Nyssen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, Juvencus, and 
Sedulius. And the opinion seems to have taken its original 
from the practice of the Eastern countries in using myrrh in 
the preparation of dead bodies for their burial. And this, 
concurring exactly with the Jewish custom and our Saviour’s 
manner of burial, might probably the more incline the ancients 
to be curious in using the same preparation of dead bodies for 
their funeral. But they had also a further reason for it: for 
they were often obliged to bury their dead in those places, 
where they were to assemble for Divine service: and in that 
case it was necessary, that they should use embalming to pre- 
serve the bodies from corruption, and make those places to be 
the less offensive: as I find a late ingenious writer is also 
inclined to think’, in his reflections on this subject. Now the 
heathens having generally another way of burying, this custom 
was of no use among them: for it was incongruous to use 
methods to preserve the body from corruption, which they 
intended immediately to destroy by fire, and reduce to ashes 
in a funeral pile. These things were plainly contradictory to 
one another; and, therefore, as the Roman heathens made no 
use of embalming, so we may reckon this another difference 
between the Christian funerals and those of the heathens. 


Sect. VI.—The Christians usually buried by Day, the 
Heathens by Night. 


There was one difference more in point of time: for the 
heathens commonly performed their funeral obsequies by night; 
but the Christians, when they had liberty, and could do it with 
safety, always chose the day. In times of persecution, indeed, 
it is reasonable to suppose they might often be forced to cele- 
brate their funeral offices, as they did others, in the security 
and silence of the night, to avoid the rage of their enemies: 
as we find an example in the Passion of Cyprian™, whose body, 


serm. i, de Epiphania, et serm. xxxvii.; Hieron. Comment. serm. ii. and iii. de 
Epiphan.; Juvencum et Sedulium, quorum nota sunt carmina. 

! Reeve’s Apolog. Note on Minucius, p. 76. 

m Passio Cyprian. (Oxon. 1682. p. 14.) Ejus corpus propter gentilium curi- 
ositatem in proximo positum est cum cereis et scolacibus. 


Cuar. II. 8 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 401 


because of the curiosity of the Gentiles, is said to be buried 
secretly in the night, with lamps and torches. And yet even 
this was not always the case in those difficult times: for the 
judges were often better natured than to deny them the com- 
mon right and civility of burying, which they themselves 
thought was a debt due to human nature in general; and 
therefore, whatever other cruelties they exercised toward Chris- 
tians, they ordinarily gratified them in suffering them to bury 
the martyrs whom they had slain; as is evident from several 
of their Acts, or histories of their Passions": in which case 
there was no need to fly to the favour and security of the 
night, but they might bury, as they often did, in the open 
day. Thus when Polycarp was burnt, the disciples afterward 
were permitted quietly to gather up his bones and relics®, and 
bury them as they pleased. And Asturius?, a Roman senator, 
is famed for carrying Marinus on his own shoulders, from the 
place of his martyrdom to his grave. 

But however this matter stood in times of persecution, it is 
certain, that as soon as Constantine came to the throne, 
Christians chose to perform their funeral rites openly in the 
day, which they did all the time of Constantine and Constan- 
tius: at which Julian the Apostate was so highly offended, 
that he set forth an edict on purpose to forbid it, which is a 
certain evidence in the case. ‘‘ We understand,” says he 4%, 


n Passio Maximiliani ad caleem Lact. de Mort. Persecut. (p. 46.) Pompeiana 
matrona corpus ejus de judice meruit, et imposuit dormitorio suo, ete. 

© Euseb. lib. iv. c. xv. See before, note (a), p. 396. 

P Ibid. lib. vii. e. xvi. (Vales. 1695. p. 215.) (Reading, p. 342.) Ἔνθα καὶ 
᾿Αστύριος ἐπὶ τῇ θεοφιλεῖ παῤῥησίᾳ μνημονεύεται" ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης 
συγκλητικῶν γενόμενος, βασιλεῦσί τε. προσφιλὴς, καὶ πᾶσι γνώριμος εὐγενείας 
τε ἕνεκα καὶ περιουσίας" ὃς παρὼν τηνικάδε τελειουμένῳ τῷ μάρτυρι, τὸν 
ὦμον ὑποθεὶς, ἐπὶ λαμπρᾶς καὶ πολυτελοῦς ἐσθῆτος ἄρας τὸ σκῆνος ἐπιφέ- 
ρεται περιστείλας τε εὖ μάλα πλουσίως, τῇ προσηκούσῃ ταφῇ παραδίδωσι. 

a Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Violandis Sepulchris, leg. ν. (Lugd. 1662. 
vol. iii. p. 144.) Efferri cognovimus cadavera mortuorum per confertam populi 
frequentiam, et per maximam insistentium densitatem: quod quidem oculos 
hominum infaustis infestat adspectibus. Qui enim dies est bene auspicatus a 
funere ? aut quomodo ad deos et templa venietur? Ideoque quoniam et dolor 
in exsequiis secretum amat, et diem functis nihil interest, utrum per noctes an 
per dies efferantur, liberari convenit populi totius adspectus, ut dolor esse in 
funeribus, non pompa exsequiarum, nec ostentatio videatur. 


VOL. VII. pd 


402 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


“that the bodies of the dead are carried to their graves with 
great coneourse of people, and multitudes to attend them: 
which is an ominous sight, and a defilement to the eyes of 
men. For how can the day be auspicious that sees a funeral ? 
Or how can men go thence to the gods and to the temples ? 
Therefore, because grief in funeral obsequies rather chooses 
secrecy, and it is all one to the dead, whether they be carried 
forth by night or by day, it is fit that such spectacles should 
not fall under the view of all the people, that true grief, and 
not the pomp and ostentation of obsequies, should appear in 
funerals.” This is a plain reflection on the practice of the 
Christians in the two foregoing reigns. It grieved Julian to 
see the Christians celebrate their funerals so openly by day, 
and with indications of joy rather than grief; especially in 
their translations of martyrs, which was of the same nature 
with funerals, and was performed with great magnificence and 
expressions of joy, with psalmody and hymns to God, in a 
general assembly and concourse of the people: as it was parti- 
cularly in the translation of Babylas from Daphne to Antioch, 
which happened in his time, and was one of the great griey- 
ances in his reign. For, as the historian tells us’, “‘ All the 
Christians of Antioch, men and women, young men and 


τ Socrat. lib. ili. ¢. xviii. (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. p. 157.) (Reading, p. 194.) 
Ta yao κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἱερὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀνοιγῆναι κελεύσας, 
χρησμὸν λαβεῖν παρὰ τοῦ ἐν Δάφνῃ ᾿Απόλλωνος ἔσπευδεν" ὡς δὲ ὁ ἐνοικῶν 
τῷ ἱερῷ δαίμων τὸν γείτονα δεδοικὼς, λέγω δὴ Βαβυλᾶν τὸν μάρτυρα, οὐκ 
ἀπεκρίνατο" πλησίον γὰρ ἣν ἡ σορὸς, ἡ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ μάρτυρος κρύπτουσα" 
γνοὺς τὴν αἰτίαν ὁ βασιλεὺς, τὴν σορὸν τάχος κελεύει μετοικίζεσθαι: τοῦτο 
μαθόντες οἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν Χριστιανοὶ, ἅμα γυναιξὶ καὶ νέᾳ ἡλικίᾳ, 
χαίροντες καὶ Ψψαλμῳδοῦντες, ἀπὸ τῆς Δάφνης ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν μετέφερον 
τὴν σορόν: αἱ δὲ ψαλμῳδίαι ἥπτοντο τῶν ᾿Ἑλληνικῶν θεῶν, καὶ τῶν 
πεπιστευκότων αὐτοῖς τε καὶ τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν. Sozom. lib. ν. 6. xix. 
(ibid. 1700, p. 509, D 5.) (Reading, p. 210, 27.) Φασὶ δὲ τότε ἄνδρας καὶ 


γυναῖκας, kai νέους καὶ παρθένους, γέροντάς τε Kai παῖδας, ot THY σορὸν 





εἵλκον, παρακελευομένους ἀλλήλοις, παρὰ πᾶσαν τὴν ὁδὸν διατελέσαι ψάλ- 
λοντας᾽ πρόφασιν μὲν τῇ ὠδῇ τοὺς ἱδρῶτας ἐπικουφίζοντας" τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθὲς, 
ὑπὸ ζήλου καὶ προθυμίας κινουμένους, τῷ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην ἔχειν 
αὐτοῖς τὸν κρατοῦντα περὶ τὸ θεῖον" ἐξῆρχον δὲ τῶν ψαλμῶν τοῖς ἄλλοις, 
οἱ τούτους ἀκριβοῦντες, καὶ ξυνεπήχει τὸ πλῆθος ἐν συμφωνίᾳ᾽ καὶ ταύτην 
τὴν ῥῆσιν ἐπῇδεν' ἠσχύνθησαν πάντες οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τοῖς γλυπτοῖς, οἱ 
ἐγκαυχώμενοι τοῖς εἰδώλοις. Vid. eadem ap. Ruffinum, lib. i. 6. xxxv. 
Theodoret. lib. iii. ¢. x. 





Cuap. 11. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 4.03 


virgins, old men and children, accompanied the coffin all the 
way, having their precentors to sing psalms; at the end of 
every one of which the whole multitude joined, by way of 
antiphonal response, with this versicle, ‘ Confounded be all 
they that worship carved images, and that boast themselves in 
idols or vain gods.’ This they did for the space of six thou- 
sand paces, or forty furlongs, even in the hearing of Julian 
himself: which so enraged him, that the next day he put 
many of them into prison, and some to extreme torture and 
death.” And this, no doubt, was the secret reason of his 
enacting that law against the manner of celebrating Christian 
funerals, though the law itself pretends other reasons, taken 
from the superstitious principles of his profound philosophy 
and religion. His first reason is, ‘“‘ That the very sight of a 
funeral by day, and much more their attendance upon it, pol- 
lutes men so, that they are not fit all that day to attend upon 
the service of the gods;” and therefore a priest or a magis- 
trate, by the rules of the Roman superstition, was not allowed 
to attend upon any funeral by day, but only by night: as 
Gothofred’, out of the best Roman writers, Servius, and Dona- 
tus, Aulus Gellius, Seneca, Tacitus, and Dio, shows at large 
in his exposition of that law. This is a reason taken from the 
principles of his own superstition in religion: another is taken 
from the principles of his philosophy, of which he pretended to 
be a great master; namely this, “That the secrecy and 


8 Gothofred. in Dict. leg. Juliani. (vol. iii. p. 146.) Quibus concinit Donatus 
in Andriam Terentii.  Noctu,’ inquit, ‘ efferebantur propter sacrorum celebra- 
tionem diurnam.’ Id. Servius, lib. xi. Aineid. ad verba illa: ‘ Rapuere 
faces.’ ‘Quia,’ inquit, ‘in religiosa civitate cavebant, ne aut magistratibus 
oceurrerent, aut sacerdotibus, quorum oculos nolebant alieno funere violari.’ 
Eaque ipsa ratione vel certe simili Paulus (I. sent. tit. de Sepulchris et Lugen- 
dis) corpus in civitatem inferre non licere scripsit, ‘ Ne funestentur,’ inquit, 
‘sacra civitatis.? Et tamen refert Gellius (lib. x. 6. xv.) ex Fabii Pictoris 
lib. i., etsi fas non esset Pontifici, vel Flamini Diali mortuum intueri, (quod 
etiam Seneca, Consol. ad Mart. c. xv. et Tacitus, i. Annal. agnoscunt, id perpe- 
ram negat Dio, lib. iv.) et feralia tangere, funus tamen exsequi ne quidem 
Pontifici religioni fuisse. Neque tamen heee sunt contraria. Non fuit religioni 
Pontifici funus exsequi de nocte, quo tempore sacra non eelebrabantur : religioni 
fuisset de die, ut in indictivo funere. Vide exemplum in Tiberio apud Dionem, 
lib. lv., in funere Czesaris Augusti, quo tempore sacrorum celebratio diurna, ut 
loquitur Donatus, fiebat. 





pd 2 


4.04 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


silence of the night was fitter for sorrow, than the pomp and 
ostentation of the day,” as he called it: a third reason was, 
“That it was all one to the dead, whether they were buried 
by night or by day: and therefore it was more commodious to 
bury by night, for the sake of the living, who by nocturnal 
funerals could not be polluted or offended.” But the Chris- 
tians despised these reasons, both as unphilosophical, and 
ridiculous, and irreligious. As to the first, they knew no 
pollution arising from the attendance of a dead body or a 
funeral: the bodies of Christians were the members of Christ, 
both alive and dead ; and they owned no defilement in accom- 
panying such to their graves, who were there only laid asleep 
and at rest, as candidates of the resurrection. Whatever the 
Gentile theology might teach, they were fully persuaded that 
the dead were in the communion of saints still, and as such 
might be communicated with and attended without any moral 
defilement or pollution. And for his second reason from philo- 
sophy, ‘‘ That the night is more convenient for sorrow, while 
the day only serves for pomp and ostentation ;” this was no 
argument to them, who were taught not to give way to exces- 
sive sorrow for the dead, nor to sorrow as others without hope 
for them that were only fallen asleep: for Christian mournings 
had also a mixture of joy and comfort in them: their funeral 
pomp was chiefly psalmody and praises, with which they con- 
ducted the deceased party to the grave, and such a pomp as 
that had nothing of ostentation in it: it served only to pro- 
voke the living to holiness and virtue, to be mindful of death, 
and to make a good preparation for it; and therefore was 
proper to be exhibited in open view, in the eyes of all the 
people, in the most public manner, among crowds of specta- 
tors, and a general concourse. For all which the day was far 
more convenient than the night, the design of their funerals 
being to be seen of all the people; and, therefore, since it was 
an indifferent thing to the dead whether they were buried by 
day or by night (which was his third reason), the Christians 
chose the day for such solemnities, as being much more proper 
for the living, whose advantage herein was chiefly regarded. 
And upon these reasons the Christians continued to per- 
form their funeral obsequies by day, notwithstanding Julian’s 


Cuap. IL. 8 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 405 


inhibition or reasons to the contrary. Gothofred thinks, that 
from this time there is no instance of their burying by night : 
against which, he says, there is nothing to be alleged but one 
passage in St. Ambrose‘, which seems to speak still of funerals 
by night: for, writing to widows, he bids them consider whe- 
ther marrying again, and being conducted home with torches 
in the night, would not look as much like a funeral as a 
marriage? But Gothofred says", this is not any account of 
fact, or what was then practised, but only an allusion to the 
ancient custom of using torches both at marriages and funerals, 
according to that of the poet, ‘ Vivite felices inter utramque 
facem,’ which was the common acclamation of the people to the 
new-married couple, ‘ Live happy all your lives between your 
marriage-torch and your funeral-torch. But I am not sure 
that this is a good answer ; because there are other undeniable 
evidences, in fact, of Christians burying with lamps and 
torches attending the funeral; and, therefore, some other 
account seems necessary to be given of it. And it may be 
this: that the Christians, even when they buried by day, used 
sometimes to carry lighted torches in the procession of the 
funeral, as a demonstration of joy, which they also did upon 
some other occasions. For St. Jerome says’, ‘In all the 
churches of the East, when the Gospel was to be read, they 


t Ambros. de Viduis. (Paris. 1836. vol. iii. p. 265.) Nonne iterum passura 
quod repetit, et ad ipsos votorum tumulos, exceptarum orbitatum imagines, 
lamentorum strepitus perhorrescit ? Vel quum accensis funalibus nox ducitur, 
nonne pompze funebris exsequias magis putat, quam thalamum preeparari ? 

u Gothofred. 1. ὁ. Verum non vult eo loco Ambrosius ad noctem exsequias 
celebrari, sed ritum nuptiarum cum ritu funeris componit. Ut in funere, ita 
in nuptiis, faces usitatee. Hine illud ad matrimonio recens Junctos ; 

Vivite felices inter utramque facem: 
Et sub noctem, accensis facibus, nova nupta in domum mariti deducebatur. Ait 
igitur Ambrosius, ipso nuptiarum die funalia illa accensa non minus exsequia- 
rum ritum pree se ferre quam nuptialem deductionem, non quod tempus tempori 
respondere contendat. 

v Hieron. cont. Vigilant. c. iii. (Venet. 4to, vol. ii. p. 394, B 5.) Per totas 
Orientis ecclesias, quando legendum est Evangelium, accenduntur luminaria, 
jam sole rutilante: non utique ad fugandas tenebras ; sed ad signum leetitize 
demonstrandum ... ut sub typo luminis corporalis illa lux ostendatur, de qua 
in Psalterio legimus: “ Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum, Domine, et lumen 
semitis meis.’ 


406 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


lighted candles in the day-time; not to drive away the dark- 
ness, but to give a demonstration and testimony of their joy 
for the good news which the Gospel brought, and by a cor- 
poreal symbol to represent that light of which the Psalmist 
speaks, ‘Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light unto my 
paths:°” and therefore it is not improbable but that they 
might use the same ceremony in their funerals by day, and 
for the same reason, to demonstrate their joy, rather than 
sorrow like the heathens. In fact, it is evident, beyond dis- 
pute, that they did use lighted torches at their funerals; and 
yet no intimation is given that their funerals were by night. 
Nazianzen, speaking of the obsequies of his brother Czesarius, 
says expressly *, “‘ That his mother carried a torch in her hand 
before his body at his funeral.” St. Jerome says’, “ The 
bishops of Palestine did the like at the funeral of the famous 
Lady Paula: some of them, in honour to her, carried her 
body to the grave; and others went before the corpse with 
lamps and torches in their hands.” Gregory Nyssen gives 
the same account of the funeral of his sister Macrina?”, ““ That 
the clergy went before the corpse, carrying lighted torches in 
their hands.” And Theodoret, speaking of the translation of 
Chrysostom’s body from Comana to Constantinople, says *, 
‘““'There was such a multitude of people met him in ships in 
his passage over the Bosporus, that the sea was even covered 

x Nazianzen. Orat. x. in Cesarium. (Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 208, C 6.) (Colon. 
1690. tom. i. p. 169, C7.) Καὶ νῦν ἡμῖν ὁ πολὺς Καισάριος ἀποσέσωσται, 
κόνις τιμία, νεκρὸς ἐπαινούμενος, ὕμνοις ἐξ ὕμνων παραπεμπόμενος, μαρτύ- 
ρων βήμασι πομπευόμενος, γονέων χερσὶν ὁσίαις τιμώμενος, μητρὸς λαμ- 
προφορίᾳ τῷ πάθει τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἀντεισαγούσης, κ. τ. Δ. 

y Hieron. Epist. xxvii. ad Eustoch. in Epitaph. Paulee. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. 
p. 722, D 6.) Translata episcoporum manibus, et cervicem feretro subjicienti- 
bus; quum alii pontifices lampadas cereosque preeferrent, ete. 

z Nyssen. Vit. Macrine. (Paris. 1638. vol. ii, p. 201, A 7.) Τοῦ λαοῦ περὶ 
THY κλίνην πεπυκνωμένου, Kai πάντων ἀπλήστως ἐχόντων τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐκείνου 
θεάματος, οὐκ ἣν ἐν εὐκολίᾳ τὴν πορείαν ἡμῖν διανύεσθαι: προηγεῖτο δὲ 
καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον μέρος διακόνων δὲ καὶ ὑπηρετῶν οὐκ ὀλίγον πλῆθος, στοιχη- 
δὸν τοῦ σκηνώματος προπομπεῦον, τὰς ἐκ κηροῦ λαμπάδας ἔχοντες πάντες. 

a Theod. lib. ν. ¢, xxxvi. (Reading, 1720. p. 236.) (Vales. 1695. p. 242.) 
Χρόνῳ μέντοι ὕστερον καὶ αὐτὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου τὰ λείψανα εἰς τὴν 
βασιλεύουσαν μετεκόμισαν πόλιν" καὶ πάλιν ὁ πιστὸς ὕμιλος, ὡς ἠπείρῳ τῷ 
πελάγει διὰ τῶν πορθμείων χρησάμενος, τοῦ Βοσπόρου τὸ πρὸς τῇ Προ- 
ποντίδι στόμα ταῖς λαμπάσι κατέκρυψε. 


Cuap. II. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 407 


with lamps.” St. Chrysostom” himself speaks also of the use 
of lamps in their funerals: and in one of Justinian’s Novels °, 
the Acolythists are forbidden to exact any thing for their 
torches, because at Constantinople they were allowed for 
funerals out of a public fund, which was there provided for the 
interment of the dead. These are not bare allusions to an 
ancient custom, but plain accounts of fact, which either prove 
that Christians celebrated some of their funerals by night, or 
else that they used lighted torehes by day, as some of the 
testimonies seem to intimate: for Chrysostom says, they used 
their lights before the dead, to signify that they were cham- 
pions or conquerors, and, as such, conducted in triumph to 
their graves. And thus far Gothofred’s opinion may be 
admitted, that the Christians generally celebrated their funerals 
by day: but then this must be added to it, that they used 
lamps and torches lighted in the day, to express their joy, and 
signify their respect and honour to the deceased as a victorious 
combatant, who had conquered this world here below, and was 
now gone to take possession of a better world above. If any 
weight could be laid upon the uncertain authority of the 
writer of the Life of St. German, bishop of Auxerre, in Surius, 
it would put the matter out of dispute: for he says e, "Fhe 
multitude of lights used at his funeral seemed to outdo the 
sun, and beat back its rays at noon-day.” But, without this 
uncertain testimony, enough has been said to show the differ- 
ence between the custom of the heathens burying by night 
and the Christians burying by day, which is the principal 
thing I intended in this part of my discourse. I only add one 
thing, by way of confirmation, that the Christians in this age 
generally celebrated the eucharist at their funerals ; which Is a 
service belonging to the day, and not the night: and to the 
morning part of the day, and not the afternoon. Whence in 
one of the Councils of Carthage, we find an order, that if any 
commendation of the dead was to be made in the afternoon, it 


b Chrysostom. Hom. iv. in Hebr. Εἰπὲ, 6. (See p. 420, note (1) ). 

¢ Justin. Novel. lix. 6. v. tot. 

ἃ Surius, xxx. Jul. apud Durant. de Ritib. lib. i. 6. xxiii. n. 14. (Paris. 1632. 
p- 228.) Gallos funus ejus honorifice curasse, et multitudinem hominum, splen- 
dorem sibi etiam per diem vendicantem, repercusso solis radio, refulsisse. 


408 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


should be performed only with prayers, and not the celebration 
of the eucharist: which is a certain argument, that their 
funerals were then generally by day, since the funeral office 
was in a manner appropriated to the eucharistical or morning- 
service : but of this more hereafter, in its proper place. 





CHAPTER III. 


HOW THEY PREPARED THE BODY FOR THE FUNERAL, AND 
WITH WHAT RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES AND SOLEMNITIES 
THEY INTERRED IT. 


Srecr. 1.—Christians always careful to bury the Dead, even 
with the Hazard of their Lives. 


Come we now to the ceremonies used in preparing the body 
for the funeral, and the solemnity of interring it. No act 
of charity is more magnified by the ancients than this of 
burying the dead: and therefore they many times ventured 
upon it, even with the hazard of their lives. In times of 
persecution, and in times of pestilential diseases, this could 
not be done without great danger, and yet they never scrupled 
it in either case. Asturius, a Roman senator ?, took the body 
of Marinus the martyr from the place of execution, and car- 
ried it on his own shoulders to the grave. And Kutychianus 
is celebrated, in the Roman Martyrology and the Pontifical, 
for having buried three hundred and forty-two martyrs” in 
several places with his own hands. Sometimes they ventured 
to steal away the bodies of the martyrs in the night, when 
they could not otherwise, either by money or entreaties, get 
liberty to bury them: as we learn from the epistle of the 
Church of Lyons and Vienne, in Eusebius*, where the 
brethren express their profoundest sorrow and grief, because 


a Euseh. lib. vii. ὁ. xvi. See ch. ii. seet. vi. note (p), p. 401. 
b Pontifical. Vit. Eutychiani. 
© Kuseb. lib. ν. 6. i. See ch. 11. sect. iv. note (b), p. 397. 


Cuap. III. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 409 


their enemies would not suffer them to bury the bodies of their 
martyrs: for they kept such a strict guard upon them, that 
they could not come at them by night to take them away ; 
neither would money prevail, nor any solicitations move the 
keepers to deliver the bodies up to be buried; but they kept 
them six days exposed in the open air, and then burned them, 
and scattered their ashes in the river, that there might be no 
relics of them remaining upon the earth. The brethren here 
ventured their lives by night, to have got the bodies, if it had 
been possible, to have given them a decent funeral: and there 
want not instances in the ancient martyrologies of some, who 
became martyrs themselves upon this account, for their exces- 
sive charity to their brethren. The other difficult case, in 
which they expressed an equal charity and concern, was the 
time when pestilential diseases raged in the world. Even in 
this case they would never desert their brethren while alive, 
nor leave them unburied after death. Dionysius, bishop of 
Alexandria, gives us a remarkable instance of this care in that 
terrible plague that happened in Egypt in his time. He says°, 
“The Christians not only attended their brethren when they 
were sick, but also took care of them when they were dead, 
closing their eyes and mouths, laying them forth, watching 
with them, washing their bodies, dressing them and clothing 


ἃ Apud Euseb. lib. vii. ¢. xxii. (Amstel. 1695. p. 291, D.) (Reading, 1720. 
p. 347, 29.) Οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν ov ὑπερβάλλουσαν ἀγάπην καὶ 
φιλαδελφίαν ἀφειδοῦντες ἑαυτῶν καὶ ἀλλήλων ἐχόμενοι, ἐπισκοποῦντες 
ἀφυλάκτως τοὺς νοσοῦντας" λιπαρῶς ὑπηρετούμενοι᾽ θεραπεύοντες ἐν Χριστῷ, 
συναπηλλάττοντο ἐκείνοις ἀσμενέστατα" τοῦ παρ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀναπιμπλάμενοι 
πάθους, καὶ τὴν νόσον ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἕλκοντες ἀπὸ τῶν πλησίον, καὶ ἑκόντες 
ἀναμασσόμενοι τὰς ἀλγηδόνας" καὶ πολλοὶ γνοσοκομήσαντες καὶ ῥώσαντες 
ἑτέρους, ἐτελεύτησαν αὐτοὶ, τὸν ἐκείνων θάνατον εἰς ἑαυτοὺς μεταστησά- 
μένοι: καὶ τὸ δημῶδες ῥῆμα μόνης ἀεὶ δοκοῦν φιλοφροσύνης ἔχεσθαι, ἔργῳ 
δὴ τότε πληροῦντες, ἀπιόντες αὐτῶν πάντων περίψημα: οἱ γοῦν ἄριστοι 
τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀδελφῶν, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐξεχώρησαν τοῦ βίου, πρεσβύ- 
τεροί TE τινες καὶ διάκονοι: καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ λίαν ἐπαινούμενοι: ὡς 
καὶ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦτο τὸ εἶδος διὰ πολλὴν εὐσέβειαν καὶ πίστιν ἰσχυρὰν 
γινόμενον, μηδὲν ἀποδεῖν μαρτυρίου δοκεῖν. καὶ τὰ σώματα δὲ τῶν ἁγίων 
ὑπτίαις χερσὶ καὶ κόλποις ὑπολαμβάνοντες, καθαιροῦντές τε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, 
καὶ στόματα συγκλείοντες" ὠμοφοροῦντὲές τε καὶ διατιθέντες" προσκολλώμενοι" 
συμπλεκόμενοι: λουτροῖς TE καὶ περιστολαῖς κατακοσμοῦντες" μετὰ μικρὸν 
ἐτύγχανον τῶν ἴσων" ἀεὶ τῶν ὑπολειπομένων ἐφεπομένων τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν. 


410 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


them in garments proper for their burial, and then carrying 
them out on their own shoulders to their graves ; in doing 
which they oftened ventured so far, that in a short time it was 
their own lot to have the same good offices done to themselves 
by others.” 


Secr. Il—How they prepared the Body for Burial. First, 
closing its Eyes and Mouth,—a decent Circumstance, observed 
by all Nations. 


This passage of Dionysius shows us not only the great 
charity of the ancient Christians in burying the dead, but also 
some of the lesser circumstances and ceremonies then usually 
observed in preparing and decently composing the body for its 
burial. First, he says, they were used to close its eyes and 
mouth as soon as it was dead: which was a custom of decency 
observed by all nations, and taught them as a comely thing by 
nature itself. Only the Romans added another ceremony to 
it, which had nothing of nature, but superstition in it: which 
was, as Pliny describes it 5, “ To open their eyes again at the 
funeral pile, and show them to heaven ;” which, according to 
the Roman superstition, was as necessary to be done, as it was 
necessary at first to close their eyes against the sight of men. 
The ground of this superstition I will not stand to inquire 
into: but only observe, that as the Christians rejected this 
ceremony because it was a mere superstition, so they retained 
the other, as agreeable to that decency which is taught by 
nature. 


Secr. II].—Then Washing the Body in Water. 


The next circumstance mentioned by Dionysius, was laying 
the body out, and washing it with water. This was a cere- 
mony used not only by the Greeks and Romans, but by the 
Hebrews also: from whom it was taken and continued by 
the Christians, as it is now by the Jews, though for more 


¢ Plin. Natur. Hist. lib. xi. c. xxxvii. p. 204. Morientibus oculos operire, 
rursusque in rogo patefacere, Quiritium magno ritu sacrum est. Ita more 
condito, ut neque ab homine supremum eos spectari fas fit, et coelo non ostendi 
nefas, 


Cuapr. III. 8 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 411 


superstitious reasons than formerly, as Buxtorf acquaints 
us‘, at this day. That it was a very early rite, derived from 
the Jews to the Christians, we learn from the account which 
is given of Tabitha (Acts ix. 37), where it is said, that ‘‘ when 
she was dead, they washed her, and laid her in an upper 
chamber.” And some will have this to be the meaning of 
the apostle (1 Cor. xv. 29), where he speaks of being ‘ bap- 
tized,’ or ‘washed for the dead:’ which is not so certain. 
However, the custom is mentioned as usual among Christians, 
not only by Dionysius, but Tertullian, who says", “The 
Christians used bathing as well as the heathens, at proper 
times, for health, to preserve their vital heat and blood: for it 
was time enough to grow pale and cold, when they came to be 
washed after death.” This was also an innocent and decent 
ceremony, and therefore the Christians retained it; not for 
any mystical signification, that any of them mention, but as a 
civil rite, and comely preparation of the body for its burial. 
How long it continued in practice I know not exactly: but 
Durantus‘ gives later instances of its use out of Gregory the 


f Buxtorf. Synagog. Judaic. 6. xxxv. (6. xlix. pp. 699, 700, Basil. 1661. 8vo.) 
Aqua calida, cui addunt flores chamzemeli et rosas siccas, studiose abluitur 
mortuus, ut purus et mundus sit, quum peccatorum ratio reddenda erit. Ovum 
insuper acceptum, cum vino agitantes, permiscent, et capiti illius illmunt. 
Ablutio et inunctio hzee a quibusdam fit domi, antequam efferatur ; in nonnullis 
locis, preesertim ubi Judeecorum est magna copia, in coemeteriis, quee OT M2 
Beth Chajim, ‘locum viventium’ vocant, tabulee (quam mm» Mittah, ‘lectum’ 
vocant) impositum in ccemeterium deferunt, in quo certam quamdam zediculam 
habent, in qua eum abluunt, et post ablutionem loculo includunt. Hujus ritus 
fit mentio, Act. ix. 37. 

& Beza, in Act. ix. 37. (Cantabr. 1642. p. 325.) Hee ablutio inter sanctos 
fuit future resurrectionis ...quo respexit Apostolus, 1 Cor. xv. 29. [N.B. 
This note does not occur in the Geneva edition of 1582, to which Bingham 
refers. | 

h Tertul. Apol. e. xli. (Paris. 1664. p. 34, A 6.) Lavo et debita hora et salu- 
bri, quee mihi et calorem et sanguinem servet: rigere et pallere post lavacrum 
mortuus possum. 

1 Durant. de Ritib. lib. i. 6. xxiii. n. 13. (Paris. 1632. p. 223.) S. Gregorius 
(hom. xxxix.) de Sorore sua defuncta loquens ait : ‘Quumque corpus ejus, ex 
Id. Gregorius, Paris. 1705. 
vol. ii. (lib. ili. Dialog. 6. xvii.) Kai κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, τοῦτον λούσαντες, Kai τοῖς 





more mortuorum, ad lavandum esset nudatum.’ 


ἱματίοις ἐνταφιάσαντες, k. τ λ. Et, πὶ τῷ λοῦσαι τὸ σῶμα γυμνώσαντες, 
k. T. A. (lib. iv. ο. vii. p. 399, A 2.) Quibus etiam verbis utitur, eodem libro, 


1 


412 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


Great, and Gregory of Tours, and Bede’s Life of St. Cuthbert, 
and EKginhardus’s Life of Charles the Great. 


Secr. 1V.—Dressing it in Funeral Robes: and these sometimes 
rich and splendid. 


The next circumstance noted by Dionysius, is dressing and 
adorning the body in robes proper for its funeral. He takes 
no notice of anointing the body with precious ointment, nor of 
the use of any embalming (which was proper to be mentioned 
between washing and clothing) ; because this was not so gene- 
rally used, as being a more chargeable thing, and not so proper 
therefore to the deplorable case he was speaking of: but we 
have had occasion to speak enough of this before. The pre- 
sent circumstance of dressing and adorning the body in some 
robes or vestments proper for its burial, is mentioned by seve- 
ral other writers, who speak of these robes as differing much, 
either according to the dignity and quality of the deceased, or 
the quality of those who prepared them. Eusebius says‘, 
‘“Asturius, being a rich and noble Roman senator, wound up 
the body of Marinus the martyr, εὖ μάλα πλουσίως; ‘in a very 
rich garment,’ and so carried him to his grave.” And Con- 
stantine, according to the dignity of an emperor, was buried in 
a purple robe, with other magnificence proper to the dignity of 
his person, as the same Eusebius informs us!. And St. Jerome 
signifies this to have been the custom of the rich, though, 





Beda, de Exsequiis S. Gothberti, testatur Gothbertum vita func- 
Eum 


6. XXVil. 





tum, a navigantibus in insulam delatum, totum corpore lavatum. 
morem Gallos preecipue retinuisse testatur Gregor. Turon. (lib. de Gratia 
Confess. ¢. civ.) (Paris. 1699. p. 983.) ubi ait, ‘ Pelagiam, vita functam, ablutam 


fuisse juxta morem, ac deinde collocatum in feretro.,——Idem Gregorius, in 
Vitis Patrum, (ce. ix. x. xiii. et xx.) Sanctos Patroclum, Feriandum, Lupicinum, 
et Leopardum, post obitum ablutos fuisse commemorat.— Eginartus, in Vita 


Caroli Magni, corpus Caroli Magni solemni more lotum seribit. 

k Euseb. lib. vii. ο. xvi. See ch. ii. sect. vi. note (p), Ρ. 401. 

! Ibid. de Vit. Constantin. lib. iv. ὁ. Ixvi. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 462, B9.) 
(Reading, 1720. p. 665, 20.) ἴΕνδον γάρ roe ἐν αὐτῷ παλατίῳ κατὰ τὸ 
μεσαίτατον τῶν βασιλείων, ἐφ᾽’ ὑψηλῆς κείμενον χρυσῆς λάρνακος τὸ 
βασιλέως σκῆνος, βασιλικοῖς τε κόσμοις, πορφύρᾳ τε καὶ διαδήματι τετιμη- 
μένον, πλεῖστοι περιστοιχισάμενοι, ἐπαγρύπνως δι’ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς 
ἐφρούρουν. 


Crap. LIT. § 4. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 413 


according to his usual manner, he somewhat satirically in- 
veighs against it™: “Spare, I pray, yourselves—spare, at 
least, your riches, which ye love. Why do ye wind up your 
dead in clothes of gold? Why does not your ambition cease 
in the midst of mourning and tears? Cannot the bodies of 
the rich find a way to rot any otherwise than in silk?” Thus 
he at once gives us the custom, and his own tart reflection on 
it, showing himself a friend rather to the plaim and common 
way of dressing the dead for their funeral: which was to wrap 
them up in clean*linen clothes, after the example of Christ’s 
body, as the manner of the Jews was to bury. So St. Jerome 
says in another place, speaking of the woman that was seven 
times smitten": “The clergy, whose office it was, wound up 
her bloody body in linen clothes.” And so Prudentius, in his 
hymn upon the Obsequies of the Dead, represents it as the 
most usual funeral dress®°. And Athanasius says?, ‘‘ It was 
the custom of the Egyptians to use linen, not only for the 
meaner sort of people, but for the nobles also, and the mar- 
tyrs.” However, some adorning or other was always used : 
and therefore Sidonius Apollinaris represents it as a thing 
contrary to the common way of burying in the Goths‘, that 
being forced to inter their slain in a tumultuous manner, they 
could neither wash them nor clothe them for the grave, but 


m Hieron. Vit. Paul. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. p. 13, A 9.) Parcite, queeso, vos: 
parcite saltem divitiis quas amatis. Cur et mortuos vestros auratis obvolvitis 
vestibus? Cur ambitio inter luctus lacrimasque non cessat? An cadavera 
divitum nisi in serico putrescere nesciunt ? 

n Hieron. Epist. xlix. ad Innocent. (Venet. 4to, vol. ii. p. 6, ἢ 7.) Clerici, 
quibus id officii erat, cruentum linteo cadaver obvolvunt. 

© Prudent. Cathemer. Hymn. x. cirea Exsequias Defunctor. v. 49, 50. (Bibl. 
V. P. Galland. vol. viii. p. 535.) 


Candore nitentia claro 
Przetendere lintea mos est. 


p Athanas. Vit. Anton. (Patav. 1777. vol. i. p. 689, D.) (Colon, 1686. vol. ii. 
p- 502, B.) (tom. i. Opp. p. 862, C. edit. Paris. 1698.) Οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι τὰ τῶν 
τελευτώντων σπουδαίων σώματα, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν ἁγίων μαρτύρων, φιλοῦσι 
μὲν θάπτειν καὶ περιελίσσειν ὀθονίοις. 

4 Sidon. lib. iii. ep. iii. (Paris. 1609. p. 187.) Nec ossa tumultuarii cespitis 
mole tumulabant: quibus nec elutis vestimenta, nec vestitis sepulera tribuebant, 
juste sic mortuis talia justa solventes. Jacebant corpora undique locorum 
plaustris convecta rorantibus, etc. 


414: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


threw whole loads of them, naked, and dropping with blood, 
into the earth: which is usual enough in burying the slain of 
an army in the field, but no way agreeable to the manner of 
burying in time of peace. He that would see more of this 
custom, may consult the learned Savaro’s Notes upon Sido- 
nius'; who gives other instances out of Arnobius, and Lactan- 
tius, and Corippus, and Gregory of Tours, and Constantius’s 
Life of Germanus, which I will not stand to repeat in this 
place. I only add that of St. Jerome’, where he commends 
the Lady Paula for her great charity to the poor, in that she 
never suffered any of their bodies to go without a funeral gar- 
ment to their graves; and out of her immense propensity to 
the practice of this virtue, wished that she herself might die 
poor, and be beholden to the charity of some other to give her 
a piece of linen to wrap up her body for its funeral. And to 
this subjoin that passage of St. Chrysostom, where he makes 
this funeral clothing to have something of signification in it, 
saying‘, “‘ We clothe the dead in new garments, to signify or 
represent beforehand their putting on the new clothing of in- 
corruption.” 


r [Savar. in loc. Postquam eluta erant cadavera, vestiebantur. Paulus, 1. xix. 
de in rem verso. Ulpianus, 1. xiv. δ. Idemque et si, de Religios. et sumt. 
Funer. 1. exil. §. ult. de Legat. i. 1. xv. 8. Proinde de Usufructu. Con- 
stantius de S. Germano, lib. ii. 6. xxii. Regina vestivit. Przeter Arnob. lib. v.; 
et Lactantium de Orig. Error. 6. iv. Quintil. Declamat. ecelxxiii. Corippus, 
lib. i. 














Purpureaque in veste jacens requiescere somno, ete. 


Gregor. Turon. lib. iv. 6. ult. ; idem, lib. vi. c.ix. Hist. et de Vita Patrum, 6. iii. 
“ Exinde vestitus atque ablutus in ecclesiam defertur,’ ec. vii. ; Adfuit queedam 
matrona, que ablutam dignis vestiit vestimentis ; et ¢. xii. Ablutus ac vesti- 
mentis dignis indutus; et 6. viii. in fine. Idem, lib. iv. Hist. e. 1]. ; lib. vi. 6. 
ultim.; lib. vii. 6. i.; et de Gloria Confess. ¢. 1xxxi., ete. Grischov.] 

5. Hieron. Epitaph. Paulee, e. ii. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. p. 693.) Quis inopum 
moriens, non illius vestimentis obvolutus est 2 

' Chrysostom. Hom. exvi. (tom. vi. p. 944, Savil.) Καινοῖς ἱματίοις τοὺς 
τεθνεῶτας ἀμφιέζομεν, TO καινὸν ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἡμῶν προμηνύον- 
τες. 


Cuap. TIT. 8 ὅ. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 415 


Sect. V.— Watching and attending it in its Coffin till the Time 
of the Funeral. 


The next circumstance mentioned in the short account of 
Dionysius, is the decent composing them in their coffin, and 
watching and attending them till the time of their funeral. 
It was the custom of all nations to let the dead corpse lie 
some time unburied, lest there should chance to be some vital 
spirit or remains of life in them, that might be quite destroyed 
by too hasty a funeral. For this reason, the Romans let their 
body lie seven days; meanwhile using their ablution in warm 
water, and their several ‘ conclamations,’ as they called them, 
to try if there was any spirit left in them, which might be 
awaked and recovered to life again. If, after the last concla- 
mation, no sign of life appeared, then, ‘Conclamatum est ;’ 
there was no remedy; after this cry, they carried them forth 
to their funeral-pile. The Roman antiquaries note further, 
that the rich were commonly laid in beds, and the poorer sort 
in coffins, in the porch or entrance of their houses, close by 
their gate. The Christians’ ceremonies were in some things 
the same, and in some things a little refinement upon these. 
The common sort of people were laid in coffins of plain wood, 
as St. Ambrose and others inform us". For in this the Chris- 
tians chose rather to follow the heathens than the Jews: the 
Jews using no coffins, but only grave-clothes to wrap up the 
body, and biers to carry it to the grave. Others had their 
coffins adorned with more costly materials. Constantine was 
put ‘in a coffin overlaid with gold, ἐν χρυσῇ λάρνακι, as both 
Kusebius’ and Socrates word it, and that was covered also 
with a purple pall. St. Jerome says, likewise, that Blesilla, 
the daughter of Paula, a rich lady in Rome, had her coffin 


u Ambros. in Lue. ii. cited by Durant. de Ritib. lib. i. 6. xxiii. p. 112. Fere- 
trum ligneum est, ait Ambrosius (in 6, ii. Luce), propter spem resurgendi. 
Lignum enim, ait ille, etsi antea non proderat, posteaquam tamen Jesus id 
tetigit, proficere coepit ad vitam. 

Vv Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iv. ¢. Ixvi. (Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 462.) 
(Reading, 1720. p. 665.) “Apavrec ot στρατιωτικοὶ TO σκῆνος; χρυσῇ κατετί- 
θεντο λάρνακι; ταύτην θ᾽ ἁλουργικῇ ἁλουργίδι περιέβαλλον. Soerat. lib. i. 
ce. xl. (ibid. 1700. p. 63.) (Reading, p. 76.) Td δὲ σῶμα τοῦ βασιλέως ot 
ἐπιτήδειοι χρυσῇ ἐνθέμενοι λάρνακι, κ. τ. A. 





416 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


covered with a cloth of gold: but St. Jerome himself did not 
like it, for he says immediately upon it*, “It seemed to him as 
if he then heard Christ erying from heaven, ‘I own not this 
garment: this clothing is none of mine; this ornament is the 
ornament of strangers.’” From whence we may conclude, 
that this way of adorning coffins so pompously was not very 
common among Christians ; neither did they imitate the hea- 
thens in their collocation in the porches or entrance of their 
houses: though Durantus says’, this old Roman custom is 
still continued at Paris: but they set their coffins either in 
some inner room of their house, or an upper room, as we read 
of Tabitha (Acts ix. 37), or carried them to the church, where 
they watched with the body to the time of its funeral. Euse- 
bius says’, “‘ Constantine’s body was laid in his golden coffin, 
covered with purple, in one of the chief rooms of the palace ; 
where lights were hanged round about it in golden candle- 
sticks; and the body, so adorned with the purple robe and 
royal diadem, was attended by the watchers for several days 
and nights together: such a splendid sight as was never seen 
from the foundation of the world before.” Others chose imme- 
diately after death to be laid in the church, where the watchers 
also attended them, till they were carried forth to their fune- 


* Hieron. Ep. xxvii. Epitaph. Paule. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. p- 177, Ὁ 3.) 
Aureum feretro velamen obtenditur. Videbatur mihi [Christus] tune clamare 
de ccelo: ‘ Non agnosco vestes: amictus iste non est meus : hic ornatus alienus 
est.’ 

Y Durant. de Ritib. lib. i. 6. xxiii. n. xiii. (Paris. 1632. p. 22.) Lutetize, ubi 
quis extremum vite spiritum edidit, cadaver in vestibulo eedium, ad januam 
ipsam, vulgo collocari solet: quod nonnulli ad consuetudinem ethnicorum 
referunt. Moris enim erat et apud Greecos et apud Romanos, cadaver ad 
januam deponere, ete. 

Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iv. c. Ixvi. (Reading, 1720. p. 665.) (Vales. 
Amstelod. 1695. p. 462.) "Apavrec ot στρατιωτικοὶ τὸ σκῆνος, χρυσῇ κατετί- 
θεντο λάρνακι: ταύτην θ᾽ ἁλουργικῇ ἁλουργίδι περιέβαλλον, ἐκόμιζόν τ᾽ εἰς 
τὴν βασιλέως ἐπώνυμον πόλιν" κἄπειτ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πάντων προφέροντι τῶν 
βασιλείων οἴκων, βάθρων ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλῶν κατετίθεντο᾽ φῶτά τ’ ἐφάψαντες 
κύκλῳ ἐπὶ σκευῶν χρυσῶν, θαυμαστὸν θέαμα τοῖς ὁρῶσι παρεῖχον, οἷον 
ἐπ᾽ οὐδενὸς πώποτ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡλίου αὐγαῖς ἐκ πρώτης αἰῶνος συστάσεως ἐπὶ γῆς 
ὥφθη" ἔνδον yap τοι ἐν αὐτῷ παλατίῳ, κατὰ τὸ μεσαίτατον τῶν βασιλείων, 
ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλῆς κείμενον χρυσῆς λάρνακος τὸ βασιλέως σκῆνος, βασιλικοῖς τε 
κόσμοις, πορφύρᾳ τε καὶ διαδήματι τετιμημένον, πλεῖστοι περιστοιχισάμενοι. 
ἐπαγρύπνως Ov ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐφρούρουν. 


Cnap. IIT. ὃ 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 417 


ral. Thus Paulinus tells us?, ‘‘ The body of St. Ambrose, as 
soon as it was dead, was carried into the church, and there 
they watched with him the night before Easter.” And here, 
instead of the Roman conclamation, they were wont to make 
the church echo with psalmody, and hymns, and praises to 
God, which was a noble refinement upon the old ceremony of 
conclamation. Thus Gregory Nyssen” represents the watching 
that was kept with the body of his sister Macrina: they 
watched and sung psalms all night, as they were used to do on 
the vigils or pernoctations preceding the festivals of the mar- 
tyrs.—And something of this kind is that which St. Austin 
says® was done in his mother’s house some time after she was 
dead: ‘ Kuodius took the Psalter, and began to sing a psalm : 
and the whole family answered alternately, ‘ I will sing of mercy 
and judgment: unto thee, Ὁ Lord, will I sing.’” 


Secr. VI—The Exportation of the Body performed by near 
Relations, or Persons of Dignity, or any charitable Persons, 
as the Case and Cireumstances of the Party required. 


The last circumstance mentioned by Dionysius is the expor- 
tation of the body to the grave ; which, in the particular case 
he speaks of, being the time of a raging plague and pestilence, 
was done by such charitable persons as were willing to venture 
their own lives to discharge these last pious offices to their 
dying brethren. And there were many occasions for this sort 
of charity in the three first ages, not only upon the account of 
infectious diseases, but for the multitude of martyrs, and num- 
bers of the poor, who had nothing to depend upon but the 
kindness of such charitable persons in the Church. Some- 


a Paulin. Vit. Ambros. (Paris. 1836. vol. i. p. 17.) Ad ecclesiam, antelucana 
hora qua defunctus est, corpus ipsius portatum est; ibique eadem fuit nocte, 
qua vigilavimus in Pascha. Gregor. Turon. de Gloria Confess. ¢. civ. (Paris. 
1699. p. 983.) Et hiee dicens, [Pelagia] emisit spiritum : abluta juxta morem, 
conlocatur in feretro, atque in ecclesiam deportatur. 

b Nyssen. Vit. Macrinze. (Paris. 1638. vol. ii. p. 200, B 8.) Τῆς οὖν παννυ- 
χίδος περὶ αὐτὴν ἐν ὑμνῳδίαις, καθάπερ ἐπὶ μαρτύρων πανηγύρεως, τελε- 
Osione, «. τ. Δ. 

© Aug. Confess. lib. ix. e. xii. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 123, A.) Psalterium 
arripuit Evodius, et cantare ccepit psalmum: cui respondebamus omnis domus, 
‘ Misericordiam et judicium cantabo tibi, Domine.’ 

VOL. VII. re 





418 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE. Book XXIII. 


times this office was performed by the next relations; and 
sometimes by persons of rank and quality, when they designed 
to do a particular honour to the party deceased im regard to 
his merit and virtue. I have noted before, out of Eusebius 4, 
how Asturius, a noble Roman senator, carried Marinus the 
martyr on his own shoulders to his grave: and how Eutychian, 
bishop of Rome, is said to have buried above three hundred 
martyrs with his own hands. St. Jerome also tells us*, that 
the bishops of Palestine paid this particular respect to the 
famous Lady Paula: that they carried her forth with their 
own hands, and put their own necks under her coffin. So 
Gregory Nyssen says ‘, that he and some others of the most 
eminent clergy carried his sister Macrina to her grave, 
Nazianzen also tells τι ὅ, ‘‘ That St. Basil was carried χερσὶν 
ἁγίων; ‘by the hands of the clergy,’ in honour to his person.” 


Sect. VII.—Particular Orders of Men appointed in some great 
Churches, under the Names of Copiatee and Parabolani, to 
take care of the Sick, and perform all these Offices for the 
Dead. 


In the first ages, the poor were buried at the common charge 
and charity of the Church, as we learn from Tertullian®. But 
afterward, in some of the greater churches, where there were 
multitudes of poor, in the beginning of the fourth century, we 
find two orders of men set up in the Church, with a sort of 
clerical character, whose particular business was to attend the 
sick, especially in infectious diseases, and to do all offices that 


ἃ Euseb. lib. vii. 6. xvi. See chap. ii. sect. vi. note (p), p. 401. 

e Hieron. Ep. xxvii. Epitaph. Paulze. See above, ch. ii. note (y), p. 406. 

f Nyssen. Vit. Macrinze. (Paris. 1638. vol. ii. p. 201, A 1.) ᾿Ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτο 
ἐδέδεκτο, καὶ ἐν χερσὶν ἣν ἡ σπουδὴ, ὑποβὰς τὴν κλίνην ἐγὼ, κἀκεῖνον ἐπὶ 
τὸ ἕτερον μέρος προσκαλεσάμενος" ἄλλων τε δύο τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ τετιμη- 
μένων, τὸ ὀπίσθιον τῆς κλίνης μέρος ὑπολαβόντων, εἴην τοῦ πρόσω ἐχό- 
μενος βάδην, ὡς εἰκὸς, Kai Kar’ ὀλίγον ἡμῖν γινομένης τῆς κινήσεως. 

8. Nazianz. Orat. xx. in Laud. Basil. (Bened. 1778. vol. i. p. 830, at bottom.) 
ἹΠροεκομίζετο μὲν ὁ ἅγιος χερσὶν ἁγίων ὑψούμενος. 

h Tertul. Apol. ο. xxxix. (Paris. 1664. p. 31, Β 4.) Modicam unusquisque 
stipem menstrua die, vel quum velit, et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit, 
. . . Inde non epulis, nee potaculis, nee ingratis voratrinis dispensatur, sed 
egenis alendis humandisque, ete. 


Cuapr. III. § 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 419 


were necessary to be done, in order to give the poor a decent 
funeral. The one were called ‘parabolani,’ from venturing 
their lives among the sick in contagious distempers ; and the 
other, ‘ copiatie,’ ‘laborantes,’ ‘lecticarii,’ ‘ fossarii,’ ‘sandapi- 
lari,’ and ‘decani’ (answerable to the old Roman names 
‘libitinarii’? and ‘vespillones’), whose office was to labour in 
digging of graves for the poor, and carrying the coffin or bier, 
and depositing them in the ground, as most of the names 
signify: which it is sufficient only to hint here in this place, 
because I have given a full account of these orders of men, in 
two distinct chapters, in a former Book?. 


Sect. VIII.—Psalimody the great Ceremony used in_all Pro- 
cessions of Funerals among Christians, in Opposition to the 
Heathens Piping and Funeral Song. 


Now to proceed. Whereas the heathens had their ‘ nenia,’ 

‘funeral song,’ together with their pipers, and sometimes 
trumpeters, to play before them! ; instead of this the Chris- 
tians chose to carry forth their dead in a more solemn manner, 
with psalmody, to the grave. We cannot expect to find much 
of this in the three first ages, while they were in a state of 
persecution: but as soon as their peaceable times were come, 
we find it in every writer. The author of the Apostolical 
Constitutions gives this direction*, “ That they should carry 
forth their dead with singing, if they were faithful: ‘ for pre- 
cious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.’ 
And again it is said, ‘ Return to thy rest, Ὁ my soul, for the 
Lord hath rewarded thee.’ And, ‘The memory of the just 
shall be blessed :’ and, ‘ The souls of the just are in the hand 


i Book iil. chap. viii. and ix. 

j Vid. Rosini Antiquit. Roman. lib. v. 6. xxxix. p. 991. Servius in v. Aineid. 
seribit, moris fuisse, ut majoris zetatis funera ad tubam proferrentur: minoris 
vero, ad tibias, ete. 

k Constitut. lib. vi. ec. xxx. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 411, B 4.) Ἔν ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῶν 
κεκοιμημένων ψάλλοντες προπέμπετε αὐτοὺς, ἐὰν ὦσι πιστοὶ ἐν Κυρίῳ" 
Τίμιος γὰρ ἐναντίον Ἑυρίου ὁ θάνατος τῶν ὁσίων αὐτοῦ: καὶ πάλιν" 
᾿Επίστρεψον, ἡ ψυχή μου, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, Ore Κύριος εὐηργέτησέ 
σε; καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις Μνήμη δικαίων per’ ἐγκωμίων" Kat Δικαίων ψυχαὶ ἐν 
χειρὶ Θεοῦ. 

Ee 2 


420 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


of the Lord.” These, probably, were some of those versicles 
which made up their psalmody upon such occasions : for Chry- 
sostom, speaking of this matter, not only tells us the reason of 
their psalmody, but also what particular psalms or portions of 
them they made use of, as proper for this solemnity. ‘‘ What 
mean our hymns,” says he!: ‘‘ do we not glorify God, and give 
him thanks, that he hath crowned him that is departed, that 
he hath delivered him from trouble, that he hath sét him free 
from all fear? Consider what thou singest at that time: 
‘Turn again unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath 
rewarded thee. And again, ‘I will fear no evil, because 
thou art with me. And again, ‘ Thou art my refuge from the 
affliction which compasseth me about.’ Consider what these 
psalms mean. If thou believest the things which thou sayest 
to be true, why dost thou weep and lament, and make a mere 
pageantry and mock of thy singing? If thou believest them 
not to be true, why dost thou play the hypocrite so much as 
to sing?” He speaks this against those who used excessive 
mourning at funerals, showing them the incongruity of that 
with this psalmody of the Church. And he uses the same argu- 
ment frequently upon this occasion, dissuading men, not from 
moderate but excessive sorrow, as inconsistent with the usual 
psalmody of the Church, and exposing them at the same time 
to the ridicule of the Gentiles. “ For what?” said they ™, 


1 Chrysostom. Hom. iv. in Hebr. (Bened. 1718. vol. xii. p. 46, B 9.) Εἰπέ 
μοι τί βούλονται .. . ot ὕμνοι; οὐχὶ τὸν Θεὸν δοξάζομεν, Kai εὐχαριστοῦ- 
βεν, OTe λοιπὸν ἐστεφάνωσε τὸν ἀπελθόντα ; OTL τῶν πόνων ἀπήλλαξεν ; 
Ore τῆς δειλίας ἐκβαλὼν ἔχει παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ; οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ὕμνοι: οὐ διὰ τοῦτο 
ψαλμῳδίαι;; (p. 47, Β 2.) ᾿Εννόησον, τί ψάλλεις κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον" 
᾿Επίστρεψον, ψυχή μου, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, ὅτι Κύριος εὐηργέτησέ σε" 
καὶ πάλιν: Οὐ φοβηθήσομαι κακὰ, Ore σὺ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἶ" καὶ πάλιν" Σύ pov 
εἶ καταφυγὴ ἀπὸ θλίψεως, τῆς περιεχούσης με. ᾿Εννόησον, τί βούλονται 
οὗτοι οἱ Wadpot? ... εἰ ὄντως πιστεύεις οἷς λέγεις, περιττῶς πενθεῖς" εἰ δὲ 
παίζεις καὶ ὑποκρίνῃ καὶ μύθους αὐτὰ εἶναι νομίζεις, τί καὶ ψάλλεις; τί καὶ 
ἀνέχη τῶν παραγινομένων; διὰ τί μὴ ἀπελαύνεις τοὺς ψάλλοντας ; 

m Chrysostom. Hom. xxix. de Dormientibus. (Bened. 1718. vol. i. p. 765, 
B 5.) Ti yap οὐκ ἐροῦσιν ἐκεῖνοι; τί δὲ οὐ φθέγξονται περὶ ἡμῶν ; οὗτοί 
εἰσιν οἱ περὶ ἀναστάσεως φιλοσοφοῦντες; TavUyE οὐ γὰρ συμβαίνει τοῖς 
δόγμασι τὰ γινόμενα: ἐν ῥήμασι τὰ περὶ ἀναστάσεως φιλοσοφοῦσι, καὶ ἐν 
τοῖς πράγμασι τὰ τῶν ἀπεγνωκότων ποιοῦσιν". .. εἰ πεπεικότες ἦσαν 
ἑαυτοὺς, Ort πρὸς βελτίονα λῆξιν ἀπῆλθεν οὗτος, οὐκ ἂν ἐθρήνησαν" . .. 


Cuar. ITT. § 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 421 


“are these the men that talk so finely and philosophically 
about the resurrection? Yes, indeed! But their actions do 
not agree with their doctrine : for whilst they profess in words 
the belief of a resurrection, in their deeds they act more like 
men that despair of it. If they were really persuaded that 
their dead were gone to a better life, they would not so lament : 
therefore,” says Chrysostom, ‘let us be ashamed to carry out 
our dead after this manner: for our psalmody, and prayers, 
and solemn meeting of fathers, and such a multitude of bre- 
thren, is not that thou shouldst weep and lament, and be angry 
at God, but give him thanks for taking a deceased brother to 
himself” St. Jerome also frequently speaks of this psalmody 
as one of the chief parts of their funeral pomp. He says®, 
“‘ At the funeral of the Lady Paula, at Bethlehem, which was 
attended with a very great concourse of the bishops, and clergy, 
and people of Palestine, there was no howling or lamenting, as 
used to be among the men of this world, but singing of psalms 
in Greek, and Latin, and Syriac (because there were people of 
different languages present), at the procession of her body to 
the grave.” And speaking of St. Antony’s burying Paul the 
hermit, he says°, ‘ He wound him up, and earried him forth, 
singing hymns and psalms, according to the manner of Chris- 
tian burial.” Gregory Nyssen? gives the same account of the 


Αἰσχύνθητι τὸ σχῆμα τῆς ἐκφορᾶς" ψαλμῳδίαι, καὶ εὐχαὶ, καὶ πατέρων 
σύλλογος, καὶ πλῆθος ἀδελφῶν τοσοῦτον, οὐχ ἵνα κλαίης καὶ ὀδύρῃ καὶ 
(Homil. Ixi. in Joann. 
Bened. vol. viii. p. 374.) Ἢ γὰρ τιμὴ τῷ τετελευτηκότι; Kai θρῆνοι Kat οἰμω- 





ἀποδυσπετῇς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα εὐχαριστῇς τῷ λαβόντι. 


γαί: ἀλλ᾽ ὕμνοι καὶ ψαλμῳδίαι καὶ βίος dpvoroc.—(Homil. xiv. in 1 Tim. 
De 
S. Bernic. (Bened. vol. ii. p. 638.) Tlapa μὲν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς νεκροῖς κοπετοί 


Bened. vol. xi. p. 631.) Μεθ’ ὕμνων προπέμπουσι τοὺς ἀπελθόντας. 





τινες ἐγίγνοντο καὶ θρῆνοι: νῦν δὲ ψαλμοὶ καὶ duvpdia..—|[Homil. vi. de 
Peenitent. in edit. Latin.+] 

n Hieron. Epitaph. Pauls, ep. xxvii. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. p. 722, Ὁ 3.) 
Non ululatus, non planctus, ut inter seeculi homines fieri solet, sed psalmorum 
linguis diversis examina concrepabant. 

© [bid. Vit. Pauli. (Venet. Vallars. vol. ii. p. 11, D 7.) Obvoluto et prolato 
foras corpore, hymnos quoque et psalmos de Christiana traditione decantans, 
ete. 

p Nyssen. Vit. Macrin. (Paris. 1638. vol. ii. p. 201, B 2.) Kai ἦν τις μυσ- 
τικὴ πομπὴ τὸ γινόμενον, ὁμοφώνως τῆς ψαλμῳδίας ἀπ᾽’ ἄκρων ἐπ᾿ ἐσχά- 
τους, καθάπερ ἐν τῇ τῶν τριῶν παίδων ὑμνωδίᾳ μελῳδουμένης. 


422 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


funeral of his sister Macrina, and Nazianzen of the funeral of 
his brother Ceesarius*¢. And the practice was so universal, 
that Socrates takes notice of it among the Novatians *, telling 
us how they carried the body of Paulus, their bishop at Con- 
stantinople, with psalmody, to his grave: and it being so 
general and decent a practice, it was a grievance to any one 
to be denied the privilege of it. Victor Uticensis, upon this 
account, complains of the inhuman cruelty of one of the kings 
of the Vandals*: “‘ Who can bear,” says he, “to think of it 
without tears, when he calls to mind how he commanded the 
bodies of our dead to be carried in silence, without the so- 
lemnity of the usual hymns, to the grave?” For none were 
wont to be denied this privilege, save only such as either laid 
violent hands upon themselves‘, or were publicly executed for 
their crimes, or died in a wilful neglect of baptism. Such were 
not allowed this solemnity of psalmody at their funeral, being 
in the same rank with excommunicated persons, who had no 
title to be partakers in any offices peculiarly appropriated to 
communicants in the Church. But such as were called away, 
out of the world, “in the vocation of God,” as one of the 


4 Nazianz. Orat. x. tom. i. (Colon. 1690. p. 167, C 7.) (Bened. 1778. vol. i. 
Ρ. 208, Ο 6.) Kai viv ἡμῖν ὁ πολὺς Καισάριος ἀποσέσωσται, κόνις τιμία, 
νεκρὺς ἐπαινούμενος, ὕμνοις ἐξ ὕμνων παραπεμπόμενος, μαρτύρων βήμασι 
πομπευόμενος, . . . ψαλμῳδίαις κομιζούσαις τοὺς θρήνους. 

τ Βοογαῦ, lib. vii. ¢. xlvi. (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. p. 316, A.) (Reading, 
p- 394, 8.) Ὃς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἐκκομιδῇ, πάσας τὰς διαφόρους αἱρέσεις τρόπον 
τινὰ μίαν [ἐκκλησίαν] εἰργάσατο πᾶσαι γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα ἄχρι τοῦ 
μνήματος σὺν ψαλμῳδίαις παρέπεμπον, ἐπείπερ καὶ ζῶν διὰ βίου ὀρθότητα 
πάσαις ἐπέραστος ἣν. 

δ Victor. de Persecut. Vandal. lib. i. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. viii. p. 677, A 1.) 
(Bibl. Patr. tom. vii. p. 589.) Quis sustineat, atque possit sine lacrimis recor- 
dari, dum prieciperet nostrorum corpora defunctorum, sine solennitate hymno- 
rum, cum silentio ad sepulturam perduci ? 

* Cone. Bracar. I. 6. xxxiv. xxxv. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 841.) (al. Cone. 11. 
¢. Xvi. xvii.) Placuit, ut hi qui sibi ipsis aut per ferrum, aut per venenum, aut 
per preecipitium, aut suspendium, vel quolibet modo violentam inferunt mortem, 
nulla pro illis in oblatione commemoratio fiat, neque cum psalmis ad sepulturam 
eorum cadavera deducantur. ... Similiter et de his placuit, qui pro suis 
sceleribus puniuntur. Item placuit, ut catechumenis, sine redemtione baptismi 
defunctis, simili modo neque oblationis commemoratio, neque psallendi impen- 
datur ofticium. 


Cuap. IIL. § 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 422 
Councils of Toledo words it"; that is, the bodies of all pious 
and religious Christians, were allowed this honour of being car- 
ried to their graves with singing: but then that singing must 
not be those funeral songs which were commonly used among 
the Gentiles, accompanied with antic beating of their breasts, 
and the like: for it was sufficient for Christians, whose bodies 
were buried in hopes of a resurrection, to have the service of 
Divine songs or psalmody bestowed upon them. This shows 
us another difference between the heathen and the Christian 
way of burial. The heathens were used to have their *pree- 
ficee,? or women hired on purpose to make lamentations at their 
funerals: which even Lucian himself derides, bringing in a dead 
man, by way of ‘ prosopopeeia,’ asking this question, “ What 
does your lamentation signify to me, or your beating of the 
breast at the sound of the pipe?” And Chrysostom’, in a 
more serious manner, reproves some who, in his time, were still 
fond of this heathenish custom, whom he threatens, unless 
they amended, to prosecute with the utmost severity of excom- 
munication. 


Sect. [X.—Crowning the Coffin with Garlands not allowed 
among Christians, though they scrupled not to carry Lights 
before them. 


The heathens were used, in their funeral pomp, to crown 
their corpse with garlands, in token of victory, as Clemens 
Alexandrinus interprets it*, drawing thence an argument to 


u Cone. Tolet. III. ¢. xxii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 2014.) Religiosorum omnium 
corpora, qui divina vocatione ab hae vita recedunt, cum psalmis tantummodo 
[et] psallentium vocibus debere ad sepulera deferri. Nam funebre carmen 
quod vulgo defunctis cantari solet, vel pectoribus se proximos aut familias 
czedere omnino prohibemus. Sufficiat autem, quod in spe resurrectionis, Chris- 
tianorum corporibus famulatus Divinorum impenditur canticorum. 

ν Chrysostom. Hom. iv. in Hebr. (Bened. 1718. vol. xii. p. 48, A 6.) Et τινες 
rac θρηνούσας ταύτας μισθώσαιντο, πιστεύσατέ μοι λέγοντι, οὐκ ἄλλως γὰρ 
ἐρῶ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἔχω" ὁ βουλόμενος ὀργιζέσθω, πολὺν αὐτὸν χρόνον τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας ἀπείρξομεν ὡς τὸν εἰδωλολάτρην. 

x Clem. Peedagog. lib. ii. 6. viii. (Oberthiir, vol. iv. p. 444.) (p. 213, line 17, 
Oxon.) ᾿Αοχλήτου δὲ ἀμεριμνίας ὁ στέφανος σύμβολον" ταὐτῃ καὶ τοὺς 
νεκροὺς καταστεφανοῦσιν" ᾧ λόγῳ καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα, ἔργῳ προσμαρτυροῦντες 
αὐτοῖς τὸ εἶναι νεκροῖς. 


424. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 
prove that their idol gods were only dead men. Tertullian Y 
also expressly mentions their funeral crowns, but he condemns 
them among all the rest that he writes against in his Book of 
the Soldier's Crown, where he reckons them all idolatrous, as 
used by the heathens. We do not find this custom used by 
Christians in their funeral rites. The heathen, in Minucius, 
makes it one topic of accusation against them, that? “ they 
did not crown their sepulchres.”. And Minucius, in his 
answer, owns the charge *: ‘“‘ We do not crown the dead : and 
I wonder more at you, that ye give either torches or crowns 
to a dead man, who has no sense of them; when, if he be 
happy, he needs no flowers ; and, if he be miserable, he takes 
no pleasure in them. We adorn our funeral obsequies with 
the same tranquillity that we live; not making fading crowns 
to ourselves, but expecting a crown of everlasting flowers from 
God.” It is plain from this, that the Christians did not crown 
their dead ; neither, according to this reading of Minucius, 
could they use torches at their funerals. But this seems 
strange, when it is certain, that in the time of Minucius they 
were often forced to bury in the night. Therefore it is pro- 
bable the word ‘facem’ is crept into the text, for the sense 
and scope of the argument requires it not. However, in after- 
ages, the Christians scrupled not to carry lights and torches 
by day before their dead, as an emblem of victory and joy, as 
we heard St. Chrysostom himself before explaining the reason 
of it®. So that either the Christians did never scruple this 
ceremony ; or else, it must be said, they thought fit to adopt 
it into their rites in after-ages. 


Y Tertul. de Coron. Milit. c. x. (Paris. 1664. p. 106, B 6.) Quid enim tam 
indignum Deo, quam quod dignum idolo ? Quid autem tam dignum idolo, quam 
quod et mortuo? Nam et mortuorum est ita coronari: quoniam et ipsi idola 
statim fiunt et habitu et cultu consecrationis, que apud nos secunda idololatria 
est. 

% Minue. (ce. xii. πὶ vi. p. 38, edit. Hall.) Coronas etiam sepuleris denegatis. 

@ Ibid. (Paris. 1836. p. 470, sec. col.) Nee mortuos coronamus. Ego vos in 
hoe magis miror, quemadmodum tribuatis exanimi, aut sentienti facem, aut non 
sentienti coronam: quum et beatus non egeat, et miser non gaudeat floribus. 
At enim nos exsequias adornamus eadem tranquillitate qua vivimus: nee 
adnectimus arescentem coronam, sed a Deo ceternis floribus vividam sustine- 
mus, 

> Chrysostom. See p. 407, note (b). 


Cuap. III. § 10, 11. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 425 


Secr. X.—Funeral Orations made in the Praise of Eminent 
Persons. 


When they had thus conducted the corpse to the place of 
burial, it was usual to make a funeral oration in the praise and 
commendation of the party deceased, if there was any thing 
singular and eminent in him, fit to be recommended as an 
example and pattern of virtue to others, or worthy to be 
related, as a just memorial and monument of his own merits 
and glory. We have several orations of this kind still remain- 
ing: as that of Eusebius, at the funeral of Constantine; and 
those of St. Ambrose, at the funerals of Theodosius and 
Valentinian, and his own brother Satyrus; and those of 
Gregory Nazianzen upon his father, and his brother Cezesarius, 
and his great friend St. Basil, and his sister Gorgonia; and 
that of Gregory Nyssen, upon the death of Melitus [ Meletius], 
bishop of Antioch, which Socrates in one place calls ° ἐπικήδειον 
λόγον, his ‘ funeral oration τ᾿ and in another place * ἐπιτάφιον, 
his ‘epitaph’ But St. Jerome’s epitaphs upon Nepotian, 
Fabiola, and Paula, are of another sort, being only private 
characters composed by him to perpetuate their memory, but 
not delivered in public as funeral orations. 


Srecr. X1.—Together with Psalmody, and the usual Service of 
the Church. 


But whether there was a funeral oration or not, the other 
service of the Church was usually performed at the interment 
of the dead; the whole service, if the burial was in the morn- 
ing, when the oblation of the eucharist might be celebrated ; 
or else only the psalmody and prayers, if the funeral was in the 
afternoon. The psalmody and prayers are largely described 


© Soerat. lib. v. 6. ix. (Vales. Amstelod. 1700. p. 218, D 2.) (Reading, p. 271, 
25.) Τότε δὴ καὶ Μελίτιος, ὁ τῆς ᾿Αντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος, ἀῤῥωστίᾳ περι- 
πεσὼν ἐτελεύτησεν᾽ bre καὶ τὸν ἐπικήδειον ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ λόγον ὁ ἀδελφὸς 
Βασιλείου Γρηγόριος ἐπεξῆλθεν. 

ἃ Soerat. lib. iv. 6. xxvi. (Vales. Amstclod. 1700. p. 200, A.) (Reading, 
p- 248, 27.) ᾿Επιτάφιον εἰς Μελέτιον, τὸν ᾿Αντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπον, ἐν τῇ 


Κωνσταντίνου πόλει διεξῆλθε. 


4926 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 
by the author under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite®, 
who speaks first of their singing hymns of thanksgiving to God 
for the party deceased, and his making a victorious end, and 
desiring that they may come to the same rest with him. Then 
the bishop makes a prayer of thanksgiving also to God, for 
making the party persevere in the knowledge of God, and his 
Christian warfare, unto death. Then the deacon reads such 
portions of Scripture as contain the promises of a resurrection, 
and the hymn appertaining to the same purpose. Thus far 
was the service of the catechumens in this office of burial. 
After their dismission, the chief deacon makes a commemora- 
tion of all saints departed, and proclaims them conquerors, 
giving the same eulogium to him that was now to be interred, 
and exhorting all to follow his example, and beg of Christ a 
happy end. Then the bishop prays after this for him that was 
deceased, that God would forgive him all his sins, contracted 
by human infirmity, and translate him into the place of light, 
and the regions of the living, and give him a mansion in the 
bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whence all grief, and 
sorrow, and mourning, are fled away. Then he gives him the 
kiss of peace, and anoints him with the holy oil, and so com- 
mits him to the earth. Here is no mention of the eucharist 
being celebrated in this office, but we find it in others: and 
the two last ceremonies, of giving the kiss of peace and anoint- 
ing with oil, are in a manner peculiar to this author, and the 
former of them expressly forbidden in some other rules of 
burial: but the hymns and psalmody, and proper portions of 
Scripture, and prayers, made a part of the burial-office in all 
churches. St. Jerome thus describes the funeral of Fabiola‘: 
“ The psalms were sung aloud, and the echo of the allelujahs 
shook the golden roof of the church.” So, again, at the fune- 
ral of Paula’, he speaks not only of their singing in the proces- 
sion, but in the middle of the church also. The African Coun- 
cils speak likewise of prayers used at the funerals of the dead : 


© Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. ¢. vii. (Corderius, Venet. 1755. p. 263, ete.) 

f Hieron. Epitaph. Fabiol. ο. iv. (Venet. Vallars. vol. i. p. 466, C 5.) Sona- 
bant psalmi, et aurata templorum tecta reboans in sublime quatiebat Alleluia. 

5. Ibid. Epitaph. Paulee, ep. xxvii. (Venet. 1769. vol. ii. p. 722.) Alii choros 
psallentium ducerent, in media ecclesia, ete. 


Cuap. III. § 12. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 427 


which prayers were particularly termed παραθέσεις and ‘com- 
mendationes",’ ‘commendatory prayers,’ being such as they 
used when they committed the bodies to the ground: and 
these are appointed to be such only as were approved in synod, 
that no corruption of faith, through ignorance, might creep 
into the offices of the Church. This is abundant proof that 
psalmody and prayers were always a part of the funeral service 
in the Church. 


Secr. XII.—And sometimes the Oblation of the Eucharist. 


And whenever it was a proper season, the communion was 
added to these also; that is, when the funeral or commenda- 
tion of any person deceased was in the morning, which was the 
only proper time for the communion, because it was to be 
received by all fasting. This distinction is made in the third 
Council of Carthage, which orders, first, ‘‘ That all men shall 
receive the communion fasting :” and then adds, “ That if any 
commendation, or funeral of a bishop, or any other, be to be 
celebrated in the afternoon, it should be done with prayers 
only, and not with the celebration of the eucharist, if they that 
assisted at the funeral office had dined before.” This is a 
manifest evidence, that the communion was generally cele- 
brated at funerals in this age, at least in the African Church, 
unless some intervening circumstance of time made it other- 
wise. Accordingly Possidius tells us*, St. Austin was buried 
with the oblation of the sacrifice to God for the commendation 
of his body to the ground. And so St. Austin himself tells 


h Cone. Milevit. 6. xii. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1540.) Placuit, ut preces, vel 
orationes seu missie, quze probate fuerint in concilio, sive preefationes, sive 
commendationes, seu manus impositiones, ab omnibus celebrentur. Nee alize 
omnino dicantur in ecclesia, nisi que a prudentioribus tractatze, vel compro- 
batze in synodo fuerint, ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel 
per minus studium sit compositum.—Cod. Eeeles, Afric. 6. ciii. (Labbe, vol. ii, 
p. 1118.) Ἱκεσίας, εἴτε προοίμια, εἴτε παραθέσεις. 

i Cone. Carth. III. 6. xxix. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1171.) Sacramenta altaris non 
nisi a jejunis celebrentur. Et deinde addit: Si aliquorum promeridiano tempore 
defunctorum, sive episcoporum, . . . sive ceterorum commendatio facienda est, 
solis orationibus fiat, si illi qui faciunt, jam pransi inveniantur. 

k Possid. Vit. Aug. c. xiii. (Bened. 1700. vol. x. App. p. 188, C 5.) Pro ejus 
commendanda corporis depositione sacrificium Deo oblatum est, et sepultus est, 


5 


498 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


us, his mother Monnica was buried with the offering of the 
sacrifice of our redemption, according to custom, before her 
body was laid in the ground. This made Victor Uticensis 
bring in the people of Afric thus complaining, when all their 
clergy were driven away in the barbarous desolation of the 
Vandals™: “ Who shall now bury us, when we are dead, with 
the solemn prayers?” And that we may not think this was a 
custom peculiar to Afric, Paulinus tells us", St. Ambrose was 
so buried on Easter-day in the morning, after the Divine sacra- 
ment had been administered. In like manner, Eusebius de- 
scribes the funeral of Constantine. He says°, “The clergy 
performed the Divine service with prayers:” and lest we 
should take this for prayers only, he adds, “ They honoured 
him with the mystical liturgy [or service of the eucharist |, 
and the communion of the holy prayers.” So St. Ambrose 
gives us to understand it was in the funeral of Valentinian, 
by those words in his oration upon his death?: “ Bring me 
the holy mysteries : let us pray for his rest with a plous affec- 
tion.” And so, Euodius says4, he buried his pious notary, 
singing hymns to God at his grave “ three days together, and 
on the third day offered the sacraments of redemption.” 


1 Aug. Confess. lib. ix. ὁ. xii. (ibid. vol. i. p. 123, B 8.) Quum offerretur pro 
ea sacrificium pretii nostri, jam juxta sepulerum posito cadavere, priusquam 
deponeretur, sicut illic fieri solet, ete. 

m Victor. Utic. de Persec. Vandal. lib. ii. (Max. Bibl. V. P. vol. viii. p. 682, 
B 4.) (Bibl. Patr. tom. vii. p. 600.) Qui nos solennibus orationibus sepulturi 
sunt morientes ? 

n Paulin. Vit. Ambros. (Paris. 1836. vol. i. Ρ. 17.) Lucescente die Dominico, 
quum corpus ipsius, peractis sacramentis divinis, de ecclesia levaretur, portan- 
dum ad basilicam Ambrosianam, ete. 

° Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. iv. ο. Ixxi. (Vales. Amstelod. 1699. p. 464.) Ta 
τῆς ἐνθέου λατρείας δ εὐχῶν ἀνεπλήρουν (C. 11.), μυστικῆς λειτουργίας 
ἀξιούμενον καὶ κοινωνίας ὁσίων ἀπολαῦον εὐχῶν. 

P Ambros. de Obitu Valent. p. 12. (Paris. 1836. vol. iv. Ρ. 186.) Date mani- 
bus sancta mysteria: pio requiem ejus poscamus adfectu. 

4 Apud Aug. ep. celviii. (Bened. 1679. vol. ii. p. 560, F.) Exsequias przebui- 
mus satis honorabiles et dignas tantee animee: nam per triduum hymnis Domi- 
num collaudavimus super sepulerum ipsius, et redemtionis sacramenta tertio 
die obtulimus, 


Cap, ITI. § 13. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 4.29 


Srecr. XILL.— With particular Prayers for the Dead. 


Now this was the rather done, because in the communion- 
service, according to the custom of those times, a solemn com- 
memoration was made of the dead in general, and prayers 
offered to God for them; some eucharistical, by way of thanks- 
giving for their deliverance out of this world’s afflictions; and 
others, by way of intercession, that God would receive their 
souls to the place of rest and happiness; that he would pardon 
their human failures, and not impute to them the sins of daily 
incursion, which in the best men are remainders of natural 
frailty and corruption; that he would increase their happi- 
ness ; and, finally, bring them to a perfect consummation with 
all his saints by a glorious resurrection. All which prayers, 
as I have fully demonstrated in another place’, could have no 
relation to the modern groundless fancy of purgatory, but went 
upon other principles that perfectly overthrow it; but, being 
agreeable to the sense and opinions of those times, they chose 
the rather to use the communion-service at burials, because of 
these prayers that were constantly made therein to God for all 
holy men and women departed, among whom they reckoned 
the soul of him in particular whom they were then about to 
commit to his grave. But whether they had a communion or 
not at the funeral, they had always prayers: as is evident 
from the last-mentioned canons of the Councils of Carthage 
and Milevis, which gave directions about the use of them. 
And in these prayers, when there was no communion, they 
particularly commended the soul of the deceased to God ; 
whence probably these prayers more especially had the distin- 
guishing name of Commendations. Besides these, it was usual 
to pray for them by private or sudden ejaculations, as we find 
examples in St. Ambrose’s several orations upon the Emperors 
Theodosius, Valentinian, and Gratian, and his own brother 
Satyrus; and Gregory Nazianzen’s funeral speech upon his 
brother Czesarius; and St. Austin’s private prayers for his 
mother Monnica; not to mention the prayers made for them 
annually upon their anniversary days of commemoration. One 


© Book xv. chap. iii. sect, xvii. See vol. v. p. 117. 


430 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


of these forms of prayer, used at funerals, is still remaining in 
the Constitutions, which I the rather choose to repeat here, 
because it fully shows there was no relation to purgatory in 
those prayers, but quite the contrary, viz. a supposition that 
the soul of the deceased was going to a place of rest and hap- 
piness in Abraham’s bosom. ‘The form runs after this man- 
ner. First, the deacon says’, “‘ Let us pray for our brethren, 
who are at rest in Christ, that the merciful God, who hath 
taken the soul of this our brother, would forgive him all his 
sin, voluntary and involuntary; and of his great mercy and 
good-will place him in the region of the just, that are at rest 
in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with all those 
who have pleased God, and done his will from the beginning of 
the world, in the place whence sorrow, and grief, and mourn- 


S Constitut. Apostol. lib. viii. c. xli, (Labbe, vol. i. p. 503.) Ὑπὲρ ἀναπαυσα- 
μένων ἐν Χριστῷ ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν δεηθῶμεν" ὕπως ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεὸς ὁ 
προσδεξάμενος αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν, παρείδῃ αὐτῷ πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ἑκούσιον καὶ 
ἀκούσιον" καὶ ἵλεως καὶ εὐμενὴς γενόμενος, κατατάξῃ εἰς χώραν εὐσεβῶν, 
ἀνειμένων εἰς κόλπον ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ, μετὰ πάντων τῶν 
ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος εὐαρεστησάντων, καὶ ποιησάντων τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ" ἔνθα ἀπέδρα 
ὀδύνη, καὶ λύπη, καὶ στεναγμός" (p. 506.) καὶ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος λεγέτω, Ὁ τῇ 
φύσει ἀθάνατος καὶ ἀτελεύτητος, παρ᾽ οὗ πᾶν ἀθάνατον καὶ θνητὸν γέγονεν" 
ὁ τὸ λογικὸν ζῶον, τὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸν κοσμοπολίτην, θνητὸν ἐν κατασκευῇ 
ποιήσας, καὶ ἀναστασίαν ἐπαγγειλάμενος" ὁ τὸν ᾿Ενὼχ καὶ τὸν ᾿Ηλίαν 
θανάτου πεῖραν μὴ ἐάσας λαβεῖν: ὁ Θεὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ, ὁ Θεὸς ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ὁ 
Θεὸς Ἰακὼβ, οὐχ ὡς νεκρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ζώντων Θεὸς εἶ ὅτι πάντων αἱ ψυχαὶ 
παρά σοι ζῶσι, καὶ τῶν δικαίων τὰ πνεύματα ἐν τῇ χειρί σου εἰσὶν, ὧν οὐ 
μὴ ἅψηται βάσανος" πάντες γὰρ ἡγιασμένοι ὑπὸ τὰς χεῖράς σου εἰσίν" 
αὐτὸς καὶ νῦν ἔπιδε ἐπὶ τὸν δοῦλόν σου τόνδε, ὃν ἐξελέξω, καὶ προσελάβου 
εἰς ἑτέραν λῆξιν, καὶ συγχώρησον αὐτῷ, εἴ τι ἑκὼν ἢ ἄκων ἐξήμαρτε, καὶ 
ἀγγέλους εὐμενεῖς παράστησον αὐτῷ, καὶ κατάταξον αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ 
τῶν πατριαρχῶν, καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ πάντων τῶν 
ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνός σοι εὐαρεστησάντων" ὕπου οὐκ ἔνι λύπη, ὀδύνη, καὶ στεναγμός" 
ἀλλὰ χόρος εὐσεβῶν, ἀνημένος, καὶ γῆ εὐθείων συνανημένη, καὶ τῶν ἐν 
αὐτῇ ὁρώντων τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου" dt οὗ σοι δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ σέβας, 
εὐχαριστία, προσκύνησις ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ᾿Αμήν". -. καὶ 
ὁ ἐπίσκοπος εὐχαριστείτω ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, λέγων τοιάδε: Σῶσον, Κύριε, τὸν 
λαόν σου, καὶ εὐλόγησον τὴν κληρονομίαν σου, ἣν περιεποιήσω τῷ τιμίῳ 
αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου ποίμανον αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν δεξιάν σου καὶ σκέπα- 
σον αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τὰς πτέρυγάς σου καὶ δὸς αὐτοῖς τὸν ἀγῶνα ἀγωνίσασθαι 
καλόν: τὸν δρόμον τελέσαι: τὴν πίστιν τηρῆσαι ἀτρέπτως, ἀμέμπτως, 
ἀνεγκλήτως, διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ σου 
παιδός" μεθ᾽ οὗ σοι δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ σέβας, καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, εἰς τοὺς 
αἰῶνας, ᾿Αμῆήν. 


παρ, III. § 13. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 491] 


ing, are fled away.” After this the bishop makes another 
prayer, in these words: “Ὁ thou immortal and everlasting 
God, from whom every thing, whether mortal or immortal, has 
its being; who hast made man a rational creature, and inha- 
bitant of the world, mortal in his constitution, but promised 
him a resurrection from the dead; who didst preserve Enoch 
and Elias from tasting death; O God of Abraham, God of 
Isaac, and God of Jacob, who art not the God of the dead, but 
of the living: because the souls of all live to thee, and the 
spirits of just men are in thy hand, whom torment cannot 
touch : look down now upon this thy servant, whom thou hast 
chosen, and received to another state; pardon him whatsoever 
he has willingly or unwillingly sinned against thee ; grant him 
favourable angels, and place him in the bosom of patriarchs, 
prophets, apostles, and all those who have pleased thee from 
the beginning of the world; where there is no sorrow, grief, 
or trouble, but a place of rest for the godly, a land of quietness 
for the upright, and all those who therein see the glory of thy 
Christ: by whom all glory, honour, adoration, thanksgiving, 
and worship, be to thee, through the Holy Ghost, for ever. 
Amen.” 

Then the bishop prays again for the people there present : 
“Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance, whom 
thou hast purchased with the precious blood of thy Christ ; 
feed them under thy right hand, protect them under thy wings, 
grant that they may fight the good fight, and may finish their 
course, and keep the faith immutable, unblamable, unreprova- 
ble, through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son: to 
whom with thee and the Holy Spirit be all glory, honour, and 
adoration, world without end. Amen.” 

These prayers for the dead are not made upon the Romish 
supposition of the soul’s being in purgatory, or any place of 
torment, but plainly upon a quite contrary supposition, of their 
being conducted by the holy angels to a place of rest, to the 
bosom of patriarchs, apostles, and prophets : which is an infal- 
lible demonstration that the Church then knew nothing of a 
purgatory fire to torment the dead, for many ages after death ; 
but all her prayers went upon another supposition, which over- 


A32 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


throws the belief of a purgatory fire, by placing the souls of 
the dead in a state of immediate rest and happiness. 


Sect. XIV.—A corrupt Custom of giving the Kiss of Peace 
and the Eucharist to the Dead, corrected by the ancient 
Canons. 


Whilst we are speaking of prayers for the dead, and the 
administration of the eucharist at funerals, we must not forget 
to mention a corrupt custom which, through ignorance or 
superstition, crept into some places, but was strictly forbidden 
by the canons: that was, the custom of giving the kiss of 
peace and the communion to the dead. This had a semblance 
of piety in it, and doubtless arose from the laudable custom of 
celebrating the communion at funerals, of which it serves for a 
further testimony: but it was the effect of a blind superstition 
only; and, therefore, though the feigned author, under the 
name of Dionysius the Areopagite ', speaks with approbation 
of the ceremony of giving the kiss of peace to the dead: yet 
when this custom, together with that of giving the eucharist 
to the dead, began to creep into France about the year 578, 
the Council of Auxerre made a peremptory canon against them 
both": “It is not lawful to give either the eucharist or the 
kiss of peace to the dead.” The corruption of giving the 
eucharist to the dead had been moving in Afric some ages 
before, in the time of St. Austin; but he and the rest of the 
fathers, who met in the third Council of Carthage, gave check 
to it’, forbidding such ignorant and weak presbyters, by whose 
folly the practice had been encouraged, to give way any longer 


τ Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. 6. vii. (Corderius, Venet. 1755. p. 267.) Eira 
προσελθὼν ὁ θεῖος ἱεράρχης, εὐχὴν ἱερωτάτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ποιεῖται, Kai μετὰ 
τὴν εὐχὴν, αὐτός TE ὁ ἱεράρχης ἀσπάζεται τὸν κεκοιμημένον, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν 
οἱ παρόντες ἅπαντες. 

u Cone. Antiss. 6. xii. (Labbe, vol. v.p. 9ὅ8.}. Non licet mortuis nee eucha- 
ristiam nec osculum tradi. 

Y Cone. Carth. III. 6. vi. (ibid. vol. ii. p. 1168.) Placuit, ut corporibus de- 
functorum eucharistia non detur. Dictum est enim a Domino, ‘ Accipite et 
edite :’? cadavera autem nee accipere possunt, nee edere. Cayvendum est etiam, 
ne mortuos baptizari posse fratrum infirmitas credat, quum eucharistiam mor- 
tuis non dari animadverterit. 


Cuap, III. ὃ 15. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 433 


to it, or misguide the people in such an erroneous opinion, as 
to make them think the eucharist was to be given to the dead : 
whereas our Lord said, ‘“‘ Take, and eat :” but dead bodies can 
neither take nor eat it. The same persons thought, that dead 
bodies might also receive the other sacrament of baptism: as 
if there had been some peculiar virtue and efficacy in the out- 
ward elements of the sacraments themselves, without any sense 
or concurrence of faith in the receiver. Both which errors are 
censured also by St. Chrysostom”; and that of giving the 
eucharist to the dead, more particularly by the Council of 
Trullo*. All which shows, that this was an error which 
many superstitious people were very fond of ; but it was never 
allowed, or encouraged publicly, by any authority in the 
Church. The custom of burying the eucharist in the coffin 
with the dead (which has so much prevailed in the Romish 
Church), is a novelty of later ages only, begun by Benedict the 
monk, but without any precedent or example in any of the 
ancient monuments of the Church; as I have had occasion to 
show more fully in a former Book’. Let us, therefore, now 
pass on from these corruptions to the more approved practices 
of the Church. 


Secr. X V.—Almsdeeds commonly added to Prayers for the 
Dead. 


Almsdeeds, as a proper concomitant of prayers at all times, 
was now thought as seasonable as ever, to be given by the 
living for the dead. ‘* Would you honour the dead? Give 
alms,” says St. Chrysostom 5, in one of his homilies. And in 
another*, ‘* Why do you call the poor after the death of any 


w Chrysostom. Homil. xl. in 1 Cor. See book xv. chap. iv. sect. xix. vol. v. 
p. 207. 

x Cone. Trull. ο. 1xxxiii. ibid. 

Y Book xy. chap. iv. sect. xx. vol. v. p. 208. 

% Chrysostom. Hom. Ixi. in Joan. (Bened. 1718. vol. viii. p. 374, E 5.) Βούλει 
τιμῆσαι τὸν ἀπελθόντα ; ἑτέρως τίμησον, ἐλεημοσύνας ποιῶν. 

4 Ibid. Hom. xxxii. in Matth. (Bened. 1718. vol. vi. p. 361, E 4.) Τί μετὰ 
ταῦτα πένητας καλεῖς ; καὶ παρακαλεῖς ἱερέας εὔξασθαι; ἵνα εἰς ἀνάπαυσιν 
ἀπέλθῃ, φησὶν, ὁ τετελευτηκὼς, ἵνα ἵλεω σχῇ τὸν δικαστήν. (p. 362.) Εἰ 
γὰρ [καὶ] βάρβαροι συγκατακαίουσι τοῖς ἀπελθοῦσι τὰ ὄντα, πολλῷ μᾶλλόν 
σε συναποστεῖλαι τῇ τετελευτηκότι δίκαιον τὰ αὐτοῦ" οὐχ ἵνα [τέφρα] 

VOL. VII. Ff 


434 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


relation? Why do you desire the presbyters to pray for him? 
I know you will answer, ‘ That he may go into rest, that he 
may find a merciful Judge.” He commends this practice a 
little after, and thus presses rich men to it, that bury their 
heirs: “If many barbarous nations burn their goods together 
with their dead, how much more reasonable is it for you to 
give your child his goods when he is dead? Not to reduce 
them to ashes, but to make him the more glorious: if he be a 
sinner, to procure him pardon; if righteous, to add to his 
reward and retribution.” St. Jerome commends Pammachius 
upon this account: “ Whilst other husbands throw violets, 
and roses, and lilies, and purple flowers, upon the graves of 
their wives, our Pammachius waters the holy ashes and bones 
of his wife with the balsam of alms.” 


Secr. XVI.—And repeated yearly upon the Anniversary Days 
of Commemoration of the Dead. 


Some repeated these alms yearly, upon the anniversary day 
of commemorating the dead. At these times they were used 
to make a common feast, or entertainment, inviting both the 
clergy and the people’, but especially the poor and needy, the 
widows and orphans, that it might not only be a memorial of 
rest to the dead, but an odour of sweet smell to themselves in 
the sight of God, as the author, under the name of Origen, 
words it. St. Chrysostom says ἃ, they were more tenacious of 
this custom, than they were of some others of greater import- 
ance. If they were to commemorate a child or a brother that 


γένηται καθάπερ ἐκεῖνα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πλείονα τούτῳ περιβάλῃ δόξαν" Kai εἰ 
μὲν ἁμαρτωλὸς ἀπῆλθεν, ἵνα τὰ ἁμαρτήματα λύσῃ" εἰ δὲ δίκαιος, ἵνα προσ- 
θήκη γένηται τοῦ μισθοῦ καὶ ἀντιδόσεως. 

b Hieron. Epist. xxvi. ad Pammach. de Obitu Uxoris, ο. ii. (Venet. 1766. 
vol. i. p. 396, E.) Ceteri mariti super tumulos conjugum spargunt violas, rosas, 
lilia, floresque purpureos; et dolorem pectoris his officiis consolantur. Pamma- 
chius noster sanctam favillam ossaque veneranda eleemosynz balsamis rigat. 

¢ Origen. in Job lib. iii. In odorem suavitatis in conspectu eeterni Dei. 
(Bened. Paris. 1723. vol. ii. p. 902, B.) (p. 274, H. edit. Paris. 1603.) 

ἃ Chrysostom. Hom. xxvii. in 1 Cor. (Bened. vol. x. p. 246, E.) ᾿Ανάμνησιν 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιεῖς, Kai πένητας παρορᾷς; Kai οὐ φρίττεις: ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν υἱοῦ 
ἢ ἀδελφοῦ τετελευτηκότος ἀνάμνησιν ἐποίεις, ἐπλήγης ἂν ὑπὸ τοῦ συνειδό- 
τος, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἔθος ἐπλήρωσας;, καὶ πένητας ἐκάλεσας. 


Cnap. IIL. § 17. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 435 


was dead, they were pricked in conscience, if they did not fulfil 
the custom and eall the poor: but at other times, even when 
they were to commemorate the death of Christ, they could 
overlook them. 


Sect. XVII.—But this often degenerated into great Excesses 
and Abuses, which are complained of as no better than the 
Parentalia of the Gentiles. 


But this often degenerated into great abuses. For some, 
instead of feeding the poor, only made this an occasion of 
indulging themselves in great excesses; which was the fault 
that Tertullian so smartly reproves in the parentations of the 
Gentiles, when he objects to them their holding feasts at the 
graves of their parents, and junketing to excess*, so as to 
return drunk from thence, and beside their senses; feeding 
voraciously at the graves of those whom, in a mock piety, but 
real cruelty, they had burnt before. In the three first ages, 
no heathen could retort this back again upon the Christians : 
but in the fourth age such excesses were committed by some, 
that the Manichees, in St. Austin’s time, objected it to the 
Catholics, and the matter was so flagrant, that St. Austin was 
forced to own it!: confessing that he knew many who drank 
luxuriously over the dead; and, when they made a feast for 
the deceased, buried themselves over the dead, and placed 
their gluttony and drunkenness to the account of religion. 
But he says the Church condemned them, and daily laboured 
to correct them as wicked children. He complains of the 
same matter again, in one of his epistles to Aurelius, bishop 
of Carthage®, where he desires that these oblations for the 


e Tertul. de Testimon. Anime, e. iv. (Paris. 1664. p. 66, C 8.) Quando extra 
portam cum obsoniis et matteis tibi potius parentans ad busta recedis, aut a 
bustis dilutior redis.—Ibid. de Resurrect. Carn. ¢. i. (p. 325, A 6.) Ipsos de- 
functos atrocissime exurit, quos postmodum gulosissime nutrit. 

f Aug. de Morib. Eccles. 6. xxxiv. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 531, B 12.) Novi 
multos esse, qui luxuriosissime super mortuos bibant, et epulas cadaveribus 
exhibentes, super sepultos se ipsos sepeliant, et voracitates ebrietatesque suas 
deputent religioni. 

& Ibid. Epist. lxiv. ad Aurelium. (Bened. 1700. vol. ii. p. 22, A 9.) Quoniam 
istee in ecemeteriis ebrietates et luxuriosa convivia, non solum honores Marty- 
rum a carnali et imperita plebe credi solent, sed etiam solatia mortuorum ; mihi 

ΕΓ. 


436 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


dead might be so regulated, that they might not run into any 
sumptuousness or shameful excess: and if any thing was given 
in money upon that account, it should be distributed imme- 
diately among the poor, according to the primitive design and 
intent of such oblations. For such oblations the Church 
always willingly received, but never encouraged any other”. 
The author of the book ‘de Duplici Martyrio,’ under the name 
of Cyprian‘, who wrote long after the time of St. Austin, has 
a like severe reflection upon the intemperance of the African 
people. ‘“ Drunkenness,” says he, “is so common in our 
Africa, that it is scarce reckoned any crime. Christians are 
compelled by Christians to be drunk even at the memorials of 
the martyrs. Which is no less a crime than offering a goat 
to Bacchus.” But of this I have spoken largely in a former 
Book *, where I had occasion to reflect on the same excesses 
committed by some at the monuments of the martyrs, on their 
anniversary festivals, or commemorations. I now return to 
the funerals of the ancient Church. 


videtur facilius illic dissuaderi posse istam foeditatem ac turpitudinem, si et de 
Seripturis prohibeatur, et oblationes pro spiritibus dormientium, quas vere 
aliquid adjuvare credendum est, super ipsas memorias non sint sumtuosze, atque 
omnibus petentibus sine typho, et cum alacritate preebeantur: neque vendantur, 
sed si quis aliquid pecuniz offerre voluerit, in preesenti pauperibus eroget. Ita 
nec deserere videbuntur memorias suorum (quod potest gignere non levem 
cordis dolorem), et id celebrabitur in ecclesia, quod pie et honeste celebratur. 
Conf. Hom. ci. de Diversis. 

h Cone. Carth. IV. e. xev. (Labbe, vol. ii. p. 1207.) Qui oblationes defunc- 
torum aut negant ecclesiis, aut cum difficultate reddunt, tamquam egentium 
Cone. Vasens. II. ¢. iv. (ibid. vol. iii. p. 1457.) 
Qui oblationes defunctorum fidelium detinent, et ecclesiis tradere demorantur, 
ut infideles sunt ab ecclesia abjiciendi: quia usque ad exinanitionem fidei per- 
venire certum est hane Divine pietatis exacerbationem: qua et fideles de 
corpore recedentes votorum suorum plenitudine, et pauperes collatu alimonize 
et necessaria sustentatione fraudantur. Hi enim tales, quasi egentium neca- 
tores, nec credentes judicium Dei habendi sunt, ete. 

i Cyprian. de Duplici Martyrio. (Amstel. 1700. p. 183, sec. column.) Temu- 
lentia adeo communis est Africze nostra, ut propemodum non habeant pro 
crimine. Annon videmus ad martyrum memorias Christianum a Christiano 
cogi ad ebrietatem? An hoe levius crimen ducimus, quam hireum immolare 
Baccho ? 

k Book xx. ch. vii. sect. x. See p. 145 of this volume. 





necatores excommunicentur. 





Cuap. ILI. § 18. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 437 


μοι. XVIII.—Decent Expressions of moderate Sorrow at 
Funerals not disallowed ; but the Heathenish Custom of hiring 
‘ Prafice, or Mourning Women, sharply reproved by the 
Ancients. 


Moderate sorrow, when expressed in a decent manner for 
the loss of friends, is a thing so natural in itself, and so 
consistent even with the joy and faith of a Christian, that the 
ancients never said any thing against any one expressing 
such sorrow at a funeral. But two things they extremely 
disliked, and sharply reproved; first, immoderate grief, as 
unbecoming the character and profession of a Christian, whose 
conversation is in heaven already, and his hope and expecta- 
tion no less than a crown and kingdom after death ; who, 
therefore, ought not to grieve or sorrow above measure, but 
with a mixture of joy, that any friend is gone to heaven 
before him, to take an earlier possession of it. The other 
thing they disliked, was the heathenish custom of having 
women hired on purpose to lament and make a hideous crying 
and howling before the dead, with tearing their hair also, 
and many other ridiculous signs of mourning. The chief of 
these the Romans called ‘ preeficee,’ from being set over the 
rest to guide and direct them in their funeral songs and 
Jamentations, as Rosinus! describes them out of Varro, and 


1 Rosin. lib. iii. 6. xxxi. p. 506. Preefica.] Terentius Varro, lib. vi. de Lingua 
Latina: Preefica, ut Aurelius scribit, mulier ab luctu, quae conduceretur, que 
ante domum mortui laudes ejus caneret. Hoe factitatum Aristoteles seribit, 
in libro qui inscribitur Νόμιμα Βαρβαρικὰ, quibus testimonium est, quod 
Fretum est Neevil. 

Heee quidem herele, opinor, preefica est : 
Nam mortuos collaudat.— 


Claudius seribit, ea quae preeficeretur ancillis, quemadmodum lamentarentur, 


preefica est dicta: utrumque ostendit, a przefectione preeficam dictam. Plautus 
in Truculento : 


Sine virtute argutum civem mihi habeam pro preefica.— 


Sext. Pompeius: Praeficze dicuntur mulieres ad lamentandum mortuum con- 
ductze, quee dant ceteris modum plangendi, quasi in hoe ipsum preefectze. 
Nonius Marcellus: ‘ Preeficze,’ inquit, ‘ dicebantur apud veteres, que adhiberi 
solent funeri mercede conductee, ut et flerent et fortia facta laudarent.’ 
Lucilius, xxii. Mercede quee Conductee flent alieno in funere preeficee, Multo et 
capillos scindunt et clamant magis. ——Id. lib. v. ὁ. xxxix. p. 992. Adhibeban- 








438 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Lucilius, and Sextus Pompeius, and Nonius Marcellus, and 
other Roman authors. Now this the ancients extremely dis- 
liked, and severely inveighed against as a mere heathenish 
custom. ‘“ Why do you beat yourself and lament,” says 
Chrysostom™, ‘and accuse the institution of Christ, who has 
overcome death, and made it only a sleep? If a heathen 
does this, he is worthy to be laughed to scorn; but if a 
Christian does it still, after he is assured of a resurrection, 
what apology or excuse can be made for him? And yet you 
ageravate your crime, by calling in heathen women to be your 
mourners, and to inflame your sorrow; not regarding what 
St. Paul says, ‘ What concord hath Christ with Belial? and 
what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?’” He then 
goes on to show the monstrous folly and vanity of this practice, 
by great variety of arguments ; and curiously answers all the 
little pleas, which such Christians made in behalf of them- 
selves, to excuse this unchristian deportment. In another 
place", he treats them more sharply, telling them, ‘‘ He was 
not only grieved, but utterly ashamed, to think how Christians 
debased and disgraced themselves in the eyes of the heathen, 
and Jews, and heretics, by their weeping, and wailing, and 
howlings, and lamentations, and other indecent practices in 
the open streets, for which the Gentiles derided them. For 


tur etiam preeficee, quas Sext. Pompeius ait mulieres fuisse, ad lamentandum 
mortuum conductas, quee darent ceteris modum plangendi ; unde etiam nomen 
habeant, quasi quze huic rei sint preefectee, etc. 

m Chrysostom. Hom. xxxii. in Matth. (Field, Cambr. 1839. vol. i. p. 435.) 
(Explan. in N.T. Paris. 1636. vol. i. p. 306, B.) Μηδεὶς κοπτέσθω λοιπὸν, 
μηδὲ θρηνείτω, μηδὲ τὸ κατόρθωμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ διαβαλλέτω" καὶ yap ἐνίκησε 
[τὸν] θάνατον" τί τοίνυν περιττὰ θρηνεῖς ; ὕπνος τὸ πρᾶγμα γέγονε" τί 
ὀδύρῃ καὶ κλαίεις ; τοῦτο γὰρ εἰ καὶ “Ἕλληνες ἐποίουν, καταγελᾷν δεῖ ὅταν 
δὲ ὁ πιστὸς ἐν τούτοις ἀσχημονῇ; ποία ἀπολογία ; τίς ἔσται συγγνώμη 
τοιαῦτα ἀνοηταίνουσι, καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ χρόνον τοσοῦτον καὶ σαφῆ τῆς 
ἀναστάσεως ἀπόζειξιν ; σὺ δὲ ὥσπερ αὐξῆσαι τὸ ἔγκλημα σπεύδων, καὶ 
θρηνῳδοὺς ἡμῖν ἄγεις “Ἑλληνίδας γυναῖκας, ἐξάπτων τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν 
κάμινον διεγείρων, καὶ οὐκ ἀκούεις τοῦ ἸΤαύλον λέγοντος: Τίς συμφώνησις 
Χριστῷ πρὸς Βελίαρ ; ἢ ric μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου ; 

n Chrysostom. Hom. iv. in Hebr. (Bened. 1718. vol. xii. p. 46.) Ὅταν ἴδω 
τοὺς κοπετοὺς, . . . TAC οἱμωγὰς ... τὰς ὀλολυγὰς, τὰς ἀσχημοσύνας τὰς 
ἄλλας, αἰσχύνομαι τοὺς “Ἕλληνας καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίους, καὶ αἱρετικοὺς τοὺς 


ὁρῶντας, ἄς. 


Cuap, III. § 18. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 439 


they were ready to say, ‘ How can any of these men despise 
death themselves, who cannot so much as bear the death of 
another? They are fine things indeed that are spoken by 
St. Paul, when he says, ‘God delivered them, who, through 
fear of death, were all their lifetime held in bondage.’ These 
are heavenly words truly, and very worthy and becoming the 
great kindness and love of God to men. But ye will not 
suffer us to believe these things; for ye contradict them by 
your own actions. Show me your philosophy by your patience 
in bearing cheerfully the death of others, and then I will 
believe the resurrection.” Thus he makes the heathen speak 
by a neat prosopopeeia, to shame such Christians, if it 
might be, into a more manly deportment. He adds withal, 
“That such indecent behaviour of men and women, tearing 
their hair, and making such hideous lamentation, was a crime 
for which, if they had their desert, they ought to be cast out 
of the Church, as in effect denying the resurrection.” In 
short, he tells them, with the authority of a bishop, that ‘if 
they persisted in that vile abuse of hiring heathen women to 
be their mourners, he would excommunicate them as idolaters. 
For if St. Paul calls the covetous man an idolater, much more 
may he be called so, who brings the practices of idolaters 
among Christians.” From thenceforth he peremptorily for- 
bids them to make use of any such heathen mourners, under 
the penalty of the highest ecclesiastical censure. By which 
(not to insist upon what he urges in other places ὃ, nor what is 
said by other writers) we may easily judge, how great an abuse 
this way of indecent mourning was reckoned in the Church. 


© Chrysostom. Hom. vi. in 1 Thess. (Bened. vol. xi. pp. 466—72.)—Id. Hom. 
xxix. de Dormientibus. (Bened. vol. i. p. 764, E 6.) Οὐδὲ τὴν ἀθυμίαν, ἀλλὰ 
τὴν ἐπίτασιν τῆς ἀθυμίας ἀναιρῶ: τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀθυμεῖν, τῆς φύσεως" τὸ δὲ 
πέρα τοῦ μέτρου τοῦτο ποιεῖν, μανίας καὶ παραφροσύνης καὶ γυναικώδους 
ψυχῆς. ἄλγησον, δάκρυσον, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀποδυσπετήσῃς, μὴ δυσχεράνῃς, μὴ 
ἀγανακτήσῃς. .. . Δάκρυσον, ὡς ὁ Δεσπότης σου ἐδάκρυσε τὸν Λάζαρον, 
μέτρα τιθεὶς ἡμῖν καὶ κανόνας καὶ ὕρους ἀθυμίας, οὺς ὑπερβαίνειν οὐ δεῖ, 


440 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


Sect. XIX.—The Novendial of the Heathen rejected as a 
superstitious Practice. 


The heathens had another custom of repeating their mourn- 
ing on the third, and seventh, and ninth day, which was parti- 
cularly called the ‘ Novendiale :’ and some added the twentieth, 
and thirtieth, and fortieth, not without a superstitious opinion 
of those particular days wherein they used to sacrifice to their 
‘manes,’ with milk and wine, and garlands and flowers, as the 
Roman antiquaries? inform us. Something of this supersti- 
tion, abating the sacrifice, was still remaining among some 
ignorant Christians in St. Austin’s time; for he speaks? of 
some who observed a novendial in relation to their dead, which 
he thinks they ought to be forbidden, because it was only a 
heathen custom. He does not seem to intimate, that they 
kept it exactly as the heathen did; but rather that they were 
superstitious in their observation of nine days of mourning, 
which was without example in Scripture. There was another 
way of continuing the funeral offices for three days together, 
which was allowed among Christians, because it had nothing 
in it but the same worship of God repeated. Thus Euodius, 
writing to St. Austin, and giving him an account of the funeral 
of a very pious young man, who had been his notary, says’, 
‘““He had given him honourable obsequies, worthy so great a 
soul: for he continued to sing hymns to God for three days 
together at his grave, and on the third day offered the sacra- 
ments of redemption.” The author of the Constitutions takes 
notice of this repetition of the funeral office on the third day, 


P Rosin. Antiquit. lib. v. 6. xxxix. p. 997. Ceterum quum nonnulli essent, 
qui suorum vel propinquorum vel amicorum minus desiderium ferre possent, 
tertium, septimum, nonum, et quidam vicesimum, tricesimum, et quadragesimnum, 
non sine quadam numerorum religione dies defunctorum manibus et memorize 
statuebant : unde parentationes, feralia, novemdialia, decennalia, vicennalia, tri- 
cennalia, ete. originem traxerunt; que omnia tum lacte et vino, tum sertis et 
floribus, tum aliis rebus ab antiquis celebrabantur. 

4 Aug. Quest. clxxii. in Genes. (tom. iv. p. 125, Basil. 1569.) (Bened. 
1700. vol. iii. p. 315, C.) Nescio utrum inveniatur alicui sanctorum in Seripturis 
celebratum esse luctum novem dies, quod apud Latinos Novemdiale appellant. 
Unde mihi videntur ab hae consuetudine prohibendi, si qui Christianorum istum 
in mortuis suis numerum servant, qui magis est in gentilium consuetudine. 

τ Ep. celviii. See above, p. 428, note (4). 


Cuap. III. ὃ 19. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 441 


and the ninth day, and the fortieth day; giving peculiar rea- 
sons for each of them’: ‘‘ Let the third day be observed for 
the dead with psalms, and lessons, and prayers ; because Christ, 
on the third day, rose again from the dead; and let the ninth 
day be observed in remembrance of the living and the dead ; 
and also the fortieth day, according to the ancient manner of 
the Israelites mourning for Moses forty days; and finally, let 
the anniversary day be observed in commemoration of the 
deceased.” Cotelerius, in his notes upon this place, has ob- 
served several other ancient writers, who take notice of some 
of these days. Palladius, in his ‘ Historia Lausiaca,’ 6. XXvil. 
mentions the third and the fortieth. Justinian, in one of his 
Novels, speaks of the third, the ninth, the fortieth, and the 
anniversary day of commemoration; forbidding women, who 
professed the monastic life, to go into the monasteries of the 
men, under pretence of any of these solemn commemorations 
of the dead. Τὸ these he adds St. Ambrose, in his funeral 
oration upon Theodosius ; and Isidore of Pelusium (lib. 1. ep. 
exiv.); and Eustratius Constantinopolitanus, mentioned by 
Photius (Cod. 171). To omit Damascen, Nicon, Philippus 
Solitarius, Hinemarus, Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, or 
any later writers. Suicerus and Meursius take notice of the 
same custom in the word τριτεννάται, which signifies ‘ the third 
and ninth day of commemorating the dead ;’ which, they say, 
was the custom of the ancients. So that when St. Austin 
speaks against observing the ninth day, it was not what Cote- 
lerius supposes, because he was ignorant of this practice, with 
St. Ambrose and many other of the Latins (wherein Cotelerius 
contradicts himself, having alleged St. Ambrose before as one 
that approved the practice); but it was because St. Austin 
had observed something amiss in the practice of some supersti- 


s Constitut. lib. viii. 6. xlii. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 506.) ᾿Επιτελείσθω δὲ τρίτα 
τῶν κεκοιμημένων, ἐν Warpoic, καὶ ἀναγνώσεσι, Kai προσευχαῖς, διὰ τὸν διὰ 
τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἐγερθέντα" καὶ ἔννατα, εἰς ὑπόμνησιν τῶν περιόντων καὶ τῶν 
κεκοιμημένων" καὶ τεσσαρακοστὰ, κατὰ τὸν παλαιὸν τὐπον᾽ Μωσῆν γὰρ 
οὕτως ὁ λαὸς ἐπένθησε; καὶ ἐνιαύσια, ὑπὲρ μνείας αὐτοῦ. 

t Justin. Novel. exxxiii. ο. iii. (Amstelod. 1663. p. 188.) ᾿Αλλὰ μηδὲ, ἄλλην 
ἐπινοείτωσαν πρόφασιν TOY... παρόδων ... εἰς τρίτην καὶ ἐννάτην συνιόν- 


τες ἡμέραν, καὶ ἥνικα τεσσαράκοντα ἐξήκοιεν, ἢ καὶ ἐνιαυτός. 


442 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


tious Christians, who kept the ninth day with some abuse, 
most probably rioting and excess, resembling the novendial of 
the heathens ; as we have heard him complain before of the 
feasts, which such Christians made at the graves of the dead, 
too much resembling the ‘ Parentalia’ of the Gentiles. 


Sect. XX.—The Custom of Strewing Flowers upon the Graves 
of the Dead, retained without Offence. 


The custom of strewing flowers upon the graves of the dead 
was reckoned innocent ; and, therefore, was retained by some 
Christians without any rebuke. St. Ambrose and St. Jerome 
both mention it without any censure: only they seem to speak 
of it as chiefly the practice of the vulgar; for the more intel- 
ligent sort of Christians despised it as a trifle, and showed 
their respect to the dead in acts that were more substantial. 
Thus, St. Ambrose, in praise of Valentinian, says", “1 will 
not scatter flowers upon his grave, but perfume his spirit with 
the odour of Christ. Let others strew their baskets of flowers 
upon him ; my lily is Christ ; and with this flower only will I 
consecrate his remains.” In like manner St. Jerome com- 
mends his friend Pammachius, for this*, that ‘ whilst other 
husbands scattered violets, and roses, and lilies, and purple 
flowers, upon the graves of their deceased wives, and with such 
little offices assuaged the grief of their breasts; Pammachius 
watered the holy ashes and bones of his wife with the balsam 
of almsdeeds and charity to the poor. With these perfumes 
and odours he solaced the ashes of the dead that lay at rest, 
knowing that it was written, ‘As water will quench a flaming 
fire, so alms makes an atonement for sins.” 


u Ambros. de Obitu Valent. p. 12. (Paris. 1836. vol. iv. p. 186.) Non ego 
floribus tumulum ejus adspergam, sed spiritum ejus Christi odore perfundam. 
Spargant alii plenis lilia calathis: nobis lilium est Christus. Hoe reliquias ejus 
sacrahbo. 

x Hieron. Epist. xxvi. ad Pammach. de Obitu Uxoris, ec. ii. (Venet. 1769. 
vol. i. p. 396, D 9.) Ceeteri mariti super tumulos conjugum spargunt violas, 
rosas, lilia, floresque purpureos: et dolorem pectoris his officiis consolantur. 
Pammachius noster sanctam favillam ossaque veneranda eleemosynz balsamis 
rigat. His pigmentis atque odoribus fovet cineres quiescentes, sicut scriptum : 
‘Sicut aqua exstinguit ignem, ita eleemosyna peccatum.’ 


Cuap. IIT. § 21. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 443 


Secr. XXI.—As also Wearing a Mourning Habit for some 
Time. 


They had the same notion of going into a mourning habit 
for the dead: they did not condemn it, nor yet much approve 
of it, but left it to all men’s liberty as an indifferent thing ; 
rather commending those that either omitted it wholly, or in a 
short time laid it aside again, as acting more according to the 
bravery and philosophy of a Christian. Thus St. Jerome com- 
mends one Julian’, a rich man in his time, because, having 
lost his wife and two daughters, that is, his whole family, in a 
very few days, one after another, he wore the mourning habit 
but forty days after their death, and then resumed his usual 
habit again; and because he accompanied his wife to the 
grave, not as one that was dead, but as going to her rest. 
Cyprian, indeed, seems to carry the matter a little further: he 
says’, “ He was ordered by Divine revelation to preach to the 
people publicly and constantly, that they should not lament 
their brethren that were delivered from the world by the 
Divine vocation; as being assured that they were not lost, but 
only sent before them; that their death was only a receding 
from the world, and a speedier call to heaven; that we ought 
to long after them, and not lament them; nor wear any mourn- 
ing habit, seeing they were gone to put on their white gar- 
ments in heaven. No occasion should be given to the Gentiles 
justly to accuse and reprehend us, for lamenting those as lost 


y Ibid. Epist. xxxiv. ad Julian. (ibid. vol. i. p. 794, C.) Laudent te alii 
et tuas contra diabolum victorias panegyricis prosequantur: quod lzeto vultu 
mortes tuleris filiarum, quod in quadragesimo die dormitionis earum lugubrem 
yestem mutaveris, et dedicatio ossium martyris candida tibi vestimenta reddi- 
derit: ut non sentires dolorem orbitatis tuee, quem civitas universa sentiret, sed 
ad triumphum martyris exsultares : quod sanctissimam conjugem tuam non 
quasi mortuam, sed quasi proficiseentem deduxeris. 

z Cyprian. de Mortal. (Oxon. 1682. p. 163.) (p. 115, Fell. Amstelod. 1700.) 
Fratres non esse lugendos, accersitione Dominica de szeculo liberatos; quum 
sciamus non eos amitti, sed praemitti, recedentes preecedere, ut proficiscentes, 
ut navigantes solent ; desiderari eos debere, non plangi: nec accipiendas esse 
heie atras vestes, quando illi ibi indumenta alba jam sumserint : oecasionem 
dandam non esse gentilibus, ut nos merito ac jure reprehendant, quod quos 
vivere apud Deum dicimus, ut exstinctos et perditos lugeamus ; et fidem quam 
sermone et voce depromimus, cordis et pectoris testimonio non probemus ? 


444 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


and extinct, whom we affirm still to live with God; and that 
we do not prove that faith which we profess in words, by the 
inward testimony of our hearts and souls.” Cyprian thought 
no sorrow at all was to be expressed for the death of a Chris- 
tian; nor consequently any signs of sorrow, such as the mourn- 
ing habit ; because the death of a Christian was only a transla- 
tion of him to heaven. But others did not carry the thing so 
high, but thought a moderate sorrow might be allowed to 
nature; and therefore did not so peremptorily condemn the 
mourning habit, as being only a decent expression of such a 
moderate sorrow; though they liked it better, if men could 
have the bravery to refuse it. 


Secr. XXI1.—Some other Rites not allowed by the Ancients. 


We find some other funeral rites mentioned by the spurious 
writers under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite and Atha- 
nasius. As the priests anointing the body with oil before it 
was put into the grave, for which the pretended Dionysius* 
gives this reason, that “as in the ministration of baptism, 
after the person had put off his old garments, he was anointed 
with oil; so in the end of all things, oil was poured upon the 
dead. The first unction called the baptized person to his holy 
fight and combat; the second unction declared that he had 
fought his fight and finished all his labour, and was now con- 
summated and made perfect.” This was quite different unction 
from the anointing or embalming of the body to its burial, of 
which we have spoken before : and, as other writers say nothing 
of it, I let it pass as a thing uncertain, the bare testimony of 
this writer not being sufficient to establish an ancient ecclesi- 
astical custom. We may say the same of another rite men- 
tioned by the pretended Athanasius”, who speaks of lighting a 


ἃ Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. 6. vii. (Corder. Venet. 1755. p. 270, A 12.) 
Μέμνησο δὲ, bre κατὰ τὴν ἱερὰν θεογενεσίαν πρὸ τοῦ θεωτάτου βαπτίσμα- 
τος, πρώτη μέθεξις ἱεροῦ συμβόλου δωρεῖται τῷ τελουμένῳ, μετὰ τὴν ὁλικὴν 
τῆς προτέρας ἐσθῆτος ἀπαμφίασιν, τὸ τῆς χρίσεως ἔλαιον: ἐν τέλει δὲ νῦν 
ἁπάντων ἐπὶ τῷ κεκοιμημένῳ τὸ ἔλαιον ἐπιχέεται: καὶ τότε μὲν ἡ τοῦ ἐλαίου 
χρίσις ἐπὶ τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἀγῶνας ἐκάλει τὸν τελούμενον" νῦν δὲ τὸ ἐπιχεό- 
μένον ἔλαιον ἐμφαίνει, κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἱεροὺς ἀγῶνας ἀθλήσαντα καὶ 
τελειωθέντα τὸν κεκοιμημένον. 

Ὁ Athanas. Serm. de Dormientibus, quoted by Durant, de Ritibus, lib. i. 


Cuap. III. ὃ 23. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 445 
mixture of oil and wax at the grave of the dead, asa sacrifice 
of burnt-offering to God. But besides the silence of others, 
there are two further prejudices against this; first, that it 
looks more like a piece of Jewish superstition than a Christian 
rite; and, secondly, that the Council of Eliberis® has an ex- 
press canon forbidding a ceremony not very different from this, 
viz. burning of wax-tapers by day in the cemeteries of the 
dead, lest the spirits of the saints should be molested : and if 
any despised this order, they were lable to be cast out of com- 
munion for their contempt of it. I will not pretend to explain 
to the reader the reason of this inhibition, nor say that it for- 
bids expressly the rite before mentioned: but there is some 
analogy and similitude between the two ceremonies ; and, 
therefore, it is hence very probable that neither of them were 
accepted, or any ways approved by the Church. 


Sect. XXIII.—To what Sort of Persons the Privilege of 
Burying with this Solemnity was denied. 


We have now seen the whole manner of Christian burial 
among the ancients, with all the rites, both sacred and civil, 
accompanying and attending it. I have only one thing more 
to observe concerning the whole in general: which is, that 
Christian burial, with these solemnities, was ever esteemed 
a privilege, and such as good men always desired when they 
could have it; and bad men were punished for their crimes 
with the denial and refusal of it by the Church, who laid it 
as a mark of censure and displeasure upon them, not to 
allow them the honour and privilege of that solemn interment 
which was customary in the practice of the Church. Good 
men, indeed, were not above measure concerned for their 
bodies, so as to think it any real detriment or loss to them, if 
either the barbarity of their enemies, or any other accident, 


ὁ. xxiii, n. xiv. p. 235. (p. 117, edit. Lugd. 1675.) (Paris. 1632. p. 235.) Si quis 
diem obierit . . . ne omiseris oleum, et ceram, invocato Christo Deo, ad sepul- 
erum accendere..... Oleum enim et cera holocaustum est; incruentz 
autem hostize oblatio propitiatio est. 

© Cone, Iliber. ο. xxxiv. (Labbe, vol. i. p. 974.) Cereos per diem placuit in 
coemeterio non incendi: inquietandi enim Spiritus sanctorum non sunt. Qui 
hzee non observaverint, arceantur ab ecclesize communione. 


AAG THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


denied them this privilege: for in this case, as St. Austin 
largely discourses‘, the faith of a Christian set him above any 
fear that might arise from the want of a burial. The con- 
sumption of wild beasts would be no prejudice to those bodies 
which must rise again, and a hair of whose head could not 
perish. “ΤΊ Psalmist indeed says, and that with some con- 
cern, ‘ They have given the dead bodies of thy servants to be 
meat to the fowls of the air, and the flesh of thy saints to the 
beasts of the land: their blood have they shed on every side of 
Jerusalem, and there was no man to bury them.’ But this,” 
says St. Austin, “is said more to exaggerate the cruelty of 
those who did it, than the infelicity of those who suffered it. 
For though these things may seem hard and direful in the 
eyes of men, ‘ yet precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death 
of his saints.’ Therefore, all these things, namely, the care of 
a funeral, the building of a sepulchre, the pomp of funeral 
obsequies, are rather for the consolation of the living, than for 
any benefit of the dead. Ifa sumptuous funeral be any advan- 
tage to the wicked, then a poor one, or none at all, may be 
some detriment to the just. The rich man that was clad in 
purple, had a splendid funeral, by the ministry of his servants, 


d Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. i. c. xii. (Bened. 1700. vol. vii. p. 11, B.) At 
enim, in tanta strage cadaverum, nec sepeliri potuerunt? Neque istud pia fides 
nimium reformidat, tenens preedictum, nee absumentes bestias resurrecturis 
corporibus obfuturas, quorum capillus capitis non peribit. Nullo modo diceret 
Veritas: ‘ Nolite timere eos qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt 
occidere ;? si quidquam obesset futuree vitee, quidquid inimici de corporibus 
occisorum facere voluissent. Nisi forte quispiam sic absurdus est, ut conten- 
dat eos qui corpus occidunt, non debere timeri ante mortem, ne corpus occidant 
et timeri debere post mortem, ne corpus occisorum sepeliri non sinant. Falsum 
est ergo, quod ait Christus, ‘qui corpus occidunt, et postea non habent quid 
faciant:’ si habent tanta, quee de cadaveribus faciant? Absit, ut falsum sit 
quod Veritas dixit. Dictum est enim aliquid eos facere, quum occidunt, quia 
in corpore sensus est occidendo: postea vero nihil habere quod faciant, quia 
nullus sensus est in corpore occiso. Multa itaque corpora Christianorum terra 
non texit: sed nullum eorum quisquam a ccelo et terra separavit, quam totam 
implet przesentia sui, qui novit unde resuscitet, quod creavit. Dicitur quidem 
in psalmo: ‘ Posuerunt mortalia servorum tuorum escam volatilibus cceli, 
carnes sanctorum tuorum bestiis terrae: effuderunt sanguinem eorum sicut 
aquam, in cireumitu Hierusalem, et non erat qui sepeliret:’? sed magis ad 
exaggerandam eorum crudelitatem qui ista fecerunt, non ad eorum infelicita- 
tem qui ista perpessi sunt. Quamvis enim hee in conspectu hominum dura et 


Cuap. IIT. ὃ 23. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 44 


in the sight of men: but the poor man, full of sores, had a 
much more splendid one in the sight of Ged, by the ministry 
of the angels, who did not carry him forth into a marble tomb, 
but translated him into Abraham’s bosom. Some philosophers 
have despised the care of a funeral; and whole armies, whilst 
they were fighting for an earthly country, have been as regard- 
less where they should lie, or to what beasts they should 
become a prey. And the poets have said plausibly enough 
upon this subject :— 


Ceelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam. 


‘He that has no urn, has yet the heaven for a covering :’ 
therefore let not the heathen insult over the bodies of Chris- 
tians that lie unburied, who have a promise that their flesh 
and all their members shall be reformed, not only out of the 
earth, but out of the most secret recesses of every other 
clement, and in a moment of time be perfectly restored to 
their pristine and primitive state again.” 

This was the Christian’s consolation, whenever malice, or 
the necessity of their fate and condition, denied them a funeral. 
In other cases® they were very desirous to be decently interred 


dira videantur: ‘sed pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum ejus.” 
Proinde omnia ista, id est, curatio funeris, conditio sepulturse, pompa exsequia- 
rum, magis sunt vivorum solatia, quam subsidia mortuorum. Si aliquid pro- 
dest impio sepultura pretiosa, oberit pio vilis aut nulla, Preeclaras exsequias 
in conspectu hominum exhibuit purpurato ili diviti turba famulorum: sed 
multo clariores in conspectu Domini ulceroso illi pauper ministerium preebuit 
angelorum, qui eum non extulerunt in marmoreum tumulum, sed in Abrahee 
gremium sustulerunt. ... Sepulturee curam etiam philosophi contemserunt : 
et seepe universi exercitus, dum pro terrena patria morerentur, ubi postea 
jacerent, vel quibus bestiis esca fierent, non curarunt: licuitque de hae re poétis 
plausibiliter dicere, 
Ceelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam. 


Quanto minus debent de corporibus insepultis insultare Christianis ; quibus et 
ipsius carnis et membrorum omnium reformatio non solum ex terra, verum 
etiam ex aliorum elementorum secretissimo sinu, quo dilapsa cadavera reces- 
serunt, in temporis puncto reddenda et redintegranda promittitur ? 

e Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. i. 6. xiii. Nee ideo tamen contemnenda et abjici- 
enda sunt corpora defunctorum, maximeque justorum atque fidelium, quibus 
tamquam organis et vasis ad omnia bona opera Sanctus usus est Spiritus. Si 
enim paterna vestis et anulus, ac si quid hujusmodi, tanto carius est posteris, 
quanto erga parentes major adfectus ; nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, 


quze utique multo familiarius atque conjunctius, quam quelibet indumenta 


9 
4 


448 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


among their brethren; and the living thought it a piece of 
justice to the dead, to treat them handsomely after death, 
seeing their bodies had been the organs and vessels of the 
Holy Ghost to every good work; and were not only like a 
ring or a garment, mere external ornaments to the nature of 
man, but more intimately and nearly belonging to him, as part 
of his very essence and constitution. Upon this account, good 
men were equally careful both to pay this just debt to their 
holy brethren, and to make provision that the same good 
offices should be done to themselves. And this made it an 
honourable and desirable privilege to be buried after the 
manner of the faithful: but then it was a privilege which 
belonged to none but such. All catechumens that died in a 
voluntary neglect of baptism, were excluded from the benefit 
of it, as we find by an order of the first Council of Braga‘; 
and many passages of St. Chrysostom to this purpose, which 
direct men to offer private alms and private prayers for them, 
but assure us they had no place in the public offices of the 
Church*. The case was otherwise when men died without 
baptism, not through any neglect or contempt of it, but by 
some unavoidable necessity, which happened, and could not be 
foreseen or prevented, whilst they were piously and studiously 
preparing for baptism. In this case, either martyrdom or a 
man’s own faith was thought sufficient to supply the want 


gestamus. Hzec enim non ad ornatum vel adjutorium, quod adhibetur extrin- 
secus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Unde et antiquorum justorum 
funera officiosa pietate curata sunt, et exsequize celebrate, et sepultura pro- 
visa: ipsique dum viverent, de sepeliendis vel etiam transferendis suis corpori- 
bus filiis mandaverunt. 

f Cone. Bracar. I. 6. xxxv. See sect. viii. note (t), p. 422. 

& Chrysostom. Hom. iii. in Philip. (Bened. vol. xi. p. 217, E6.) Οὐκ εἰκῆ 
ταῦτα ἐνομοθετήθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων, τὸ ἐπὶ THY φρικτῶν μυστηρίων 
μνήμην γίνεσθαι τῶν ἀπελθόντων" ἴσασιν αὐτοῖς πολὺ κέρδος γινόμενον, 
πολλὴν τὴν ὠφέλειαν" Bray γὰρ εἱστήκει λαὸς ὁλόκληρος χεῖρας ἀνατείνον- 
τες, πλήρωμα ἱερατικὸν, καὶ πρόκειται ἡ φρικτὴ θυσία, πῶς οὐ δυσωπήσο- 
μὲν ὑπὲρ τούτων τὸν Θεὸν παρακαλοῦντες ; ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν περὶ τῶν ἐν 
πίστει παρελθόντων" οἱ δὲ κατηχούμενοι οὐδὲ ταύτης ἀξιοῦνται τῆς παρα- 
μυθίας, ἀλλὰ ἀπεστέρηνται πάσης τῆς τοιαύτης βοηθείας, πλὴν μιᾶς τινος" 
ποίας δὲ ταύτης ; ἔνεστι πένησιν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν διδόναι, καὶ ποιεῖ τινα αὐτοῖς 
παραψυχὴν τὸ πρᾶγμα. (Explan. in N. T. Paris. 1636. vol. vi. p. 1225, line 12 
from top.) Hom. xxiv. in Joan. (Bened. vol. viii. p. 147.) ᾿Αλλότριος ὁ 





Crap. IIT. ὃ 23. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 449 


of baptism, as I have largely showed in another place": and 
then they were buried with the same solemnity as other 
believers, being all one with them in the estimation of the 
Church. 

Another sort of persons to whom the Church denied the 
usual solemnity of burial, were the ‘biathanati;’ that is, such 
as laid violent hands upon themselves, being plainly guilty 
of murder, and that without repentance, by calling death upon 
themselves. And they put into the same class all those that 
were publicly executed for their crimes; because these were 
virtually and indirectly guilty of self-murder, in doing those 
things which, in the course of justice, brought them to an 
untimely end; or, at least, such things as deserved a spiritual 
censure, as well as a temporary punishment. Upon this 
account, the Council of Braga orders‘, that both these sorts 
of men shall be denied the honour of being carried with the 
usual solemnity of psalmody to the grave. The Council of 
Auxerre orders), that “the oblations of such as voluntarily 
hanged or drowned themselves, or killed themselves with the 
sword, or cast themselves from a precipice, or were any other 
ways guilty of a voluntary death, should not be received in the 
Church.” And this was a punishment of the same nature as 
denying them a solemn burial. There is a like order in the 
second Council of Orleans*, ‘to refuse the oblations of such 
as lay violent hands upon themselves ;” but they except such 
as were killed for their crimes: I suppose, upon a supposition, 
that such persons repented of their crimes before their execu- 
tion. But if any one laid violent hands upon himself, or was 
actually killed in his crimes, there was no exception ever made 


κατηχούμενος τοῦ πιστοῦ. In the reference to Homil. i. in Act., no mention 
oceurs of catechumens. 

h Book x. chap. ii. sect. xx. xxi. vol. ii. p. 298. 

i Cone. Bracar. I. 6. xxxiv. See sect. viii. note (t), p. 422. 

i Cone. Antissiodor. ο. xvii. (Labbe, vol. v. p. 959.) Quicumque se propria 
voluntate in aquam jactaverit, aut collum ligaverit, aut de arbore preecipitave- 
rit, aut ferro pereusserit, aut qualibet occasione voluntariz se morti tradiderit, 
istorum oblatio non recipiatur. 

k Cone. Aurel. II, 6. xv. (Labbe, vol. iv. p. 1782.) Oblationes defunctorum, 
qui in aliquo crimine fuerint interemti, recipi debere censemus, si tamen non 
ipsi sibi mortem probentur propriis manibus intulisse. 

VOL. VII. Gg 


4.50 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIIT. 


in his favour. Optatus says!, even one of the Donatist 
bishops denied the Circumcellions solemn burial, because they 
were slain in rebellion against the civil magistrate. Which 
shows, that this was a rule inviolably observed in the Church. 

Another sort of persons, to whom the Church denied the 
privilege of solemn burial, were all excommunicated persons, 
who continued obstinate and impenitent, in a manifest con- 
tempt of the Church’s discipline and censures : under which 
denomination all heretics and schismatics, that were actually 
denounced such by the censures of the Church, were included. 
For the office of burial belonged only to the ‘ fideles,’ or “ com- 
municants ;’ that is, such as died either in the full communion 
of the Church, or else, if they were excommunicate, were yet in 
a disposition to communicate, by accepting and submitting to 
the rules of penance and discipline in the Church. In which 
case, their desire of communion was accepted, as the catechu- 
mens’ desire of baptism ; and they were treated as communi- 
cants, though they happened to die without a formal recon- 
ciliation in the Church. The Church, in this case, relaxed 
their censures, and received them into communion, and treated 
them as other communicants after death: of which I have 
given a more ample account, in speaking of the discipline of 
the Church, in a former Book ™. 


1 Optat. lib. iii. (Du Pin, 1702. p. 60.) In loco Octavensi occisi sunt plurimi, 
detruncati sunt multi: quorum corpora usque in hodiernum, per dealbatas aras 
aut mensas potuerunt numerari. Ex quorum numero quum aliqui in Basilicis 
sepeliri ccepissent, Clarus presbyter in loco Subbulensi, ab episcopo suo coactus 
est, ut insepultam faceret sepulturam. 

m Book xix. ch. ii. sect. xi. vol. vi. p. 571. 


Cuap. IV. § 1. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 45] 


CHAPTER IV. 


AN ACCOUNT OF THE LAWS MADE TO SECURE THE BODIES 
AND GRAVES OF THE DEAD FROM THE VIOLENCE OF 
ROBBERS AND SACRILEGIOUS INVADERS. 


Sect. 1—The old Roman Laws very severe against Robbers of 
Graves, and all Abuses and Injuries done to the Bodies of the 
Dead. 


Tuxoucu it does not strictly belong to the business of funeral 
rites to speak any thing of robbers of graves, and the laws 
made against them; yet, because these have some relation to 
the dead, and some things also remarkable in them, I will add 
something upon this subject for the close of this whole dis- 
course. I have hinted before? that the old Roman laws were 
very severe against all injuries and abuses, offered either to the 
bodies or the monuments and sepulchres of the dead. They 
were reckoned sacred things: and, therefore, if any violated a 
sepulchre, so as to draw out the body or the bones, it was a 
capital crime, to be punished with death in persons of a meaner 
rank»; and others, of a higher fortune, were either to be 
transported into some island, or otherwise banished, or con- 
demned to the mines; as appears from the answer of Paulus 
in the Pandects, and those laws of the Christian emperors °, 


a Chap. il. sect. 11. p. 390. 

b Digest. lib. xlvii. tit. xii, de Sepulero Violato, leg. xi. (Justin. Cod. 
Ainstelod. 1663. p. 715.) Rei sepulerorum violatorum, si corpora ipsa extrax- 
erint, vel ossa eruerint, humiliores quidem fortunze summo supplicio adficiuntur: 
honestiores in insulam deportantur; alias autem relegantur, aut in metallum 
damnantur. 

¢ Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Sepuleris Violatis, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 188.) Factum, solitum sanguine’ vindicari, multz inflictione corrigi- 
rous: atque ita supplicium statuimus in futurum, ut nec ille absit a poena, qui 
ante commisit. Universi itaque, qui de monumentis columnas vel marmora 
abstulerunt, vel coquendze calcis gratia lapides dejecerunt, ex consulatu scilicet 


eg 2 


A529 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


which speak of the old laws punishing this crime with death. 
‘They made a distinction between the bodies and the sepul- 
chres: he that violated the sepulchre only, but offered no 
injury to the body, was not punishable with death, but either 
confiscation, or infamy, or banishment, or digging in the 
mines: but if he offered any indignity to the body itself his 
crime was capital, and his blood was required to expiate the 
offence ; unless the dignity of his condition happened to be 
such as the law allowed to secure his life, and change the pun- 
ishment of death into a penalty of some other nature. 


Sect. I].—This Severity continued for the most part under the 
Christian Emperors, with some additional Circumstances. 


This law continued all the time of Constantine; but Con- 
stans, his son, made a little alteration in the penalty, which 


Dalmatii et Zenophili, singulas libras auri per singula sepulcra fisci rationibus 
inferant, investigati per Prudentize tue judicium. Eadem etiam poena, qui 
dissiparunt, vel ornatum minuerunt, teneantur: et qui posita in agris suis 
monumenta calcis coctoribus vendiderunt: una cum his, qui ausi sunt compa- 
rare: quidquid enim attingi nefas est, non sine piaculo comparatur: sed ita, ut 
ab utroque una libra postuletur. Sed si et preecepto judicum monumenta dejecta 
sunt, ne sub specie publicee fabricationis poena vitetur, eosdem judices jubemus 
hane multam agnoscere: nam ex vectigalibus, vel aliis titulis edificare debue- 
runt. Quod si aliquis multam metuens, sepuleri ruinas terrze congestione 
celaverit, et non intra statutum ab Excellentia tua tempus confessus sit, ab alio 
proditus duas auri libras cogatur inferre. Qui vero libellis datis a poutificibus 
impetrarunt, ut reparationis gratia labentia sepulera deponerent, si vera docue- 
runt, ab inlatione multze separentur: at si in usum alium depositis abusi sunt, 
teneantur poena preeseripta. Hoe in posterum observando, ut in provinciis, 
locorum judices; in urbe Roma, cum pontificibus tua Celsitudo inspiciat, si per 
sarturas succurrendum sit alicui monumento: ut ita demum, data licentia, 
tempus etiam consummando operi statuatur. Quod si aliquis contra sanctionem 
Clementize nostree sepulerum lesurus attigerit, viginti libras auri largitionibus 
nostris cogatur inferre. Locorum autem judices si heee observare neglexerint, 
non minus nota quam statuta in sepulcrorum violatores poena grassetur. 
Ibid. leg. iii. Quosdam comperimus, lucri nimium cupidos, sepulcra subvertere, 
et substantiam fabricandi ad proprias aedes transferre, hi detecto scelere anim- 
adyersionem priscis legibus definitam subire debebunt. Valent. Novel. v. 
de Sepuleris. Diligenter quidem legum veterum conditores prospexerunt mise- 
ris et post fata mortalibus, eorum qui sepulera violassent, capita persequendo. 
Sed quoniam noxiz mentes czeco semper in facinus furore rapiuntur, et se ad 








peenas dudum statutas existimant non teneri, necesse est severitatem novari, 
quam videmmus hactenus impune contemtam, ete. 


Cuap. IV. § 2. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 4.53 


lasted not very long: for it was presently after revoked by 
Constantius, and the old penalty revived again. Constans, in 
a first law about demolishing sepulchres (making no mention 
of violating the bodies themselves), left the matter pretty 
much as he found it*; ordering all such as were concerned in 
demolishing of sepulchres to be sent to the mines, if they were 
of a servile condition, and did it without the knowledge of their 
lord: but if they did it barely at his instance, by his authority 
and command, they were only to be exiled by a common ban- 
ishment: and if the lord was found to have received any thing 
into his own house or farm that was taken from a sepulchre, 
his house or farm, or whatever edifice it was, was to be con- 
fiscated to the public. But, in a second law®*, he took away 
the punishment of death, which the old laws appointed ; and, 
instead of it, laid a mulet or fine of twenty pounds of gold upon 
all that should be found guilty in any thing of this nature. 
Constantius did not approve of this reduction or abatement of 
the ancient penalty ; and therefore he revoked the indulgence 
of his brother Constans; and, by two new laws of his own, 
brought the ancient punishment of death into force again, with 
some additional punishment by way of fine also. His first 
law runs in these terms‘: ‘‘ We understand there are some 
who, out of a greedy desire of gain, pull down and demolish 
sepulchres, transferring the materials of the building to their 
own houses. Now such, when their wickedness is detected, 
shall be subject to the punishment appointed by the ancient 
laws.” In his other law, he first imposes a penalty of ten 
pounds of gold upon any one that steals from a monument 


4 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Sepul. Violatis, leg. i. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iii. 
p. 137.) Si quis in demoliendis sepuleris fuerit apprehensus, si id sine domini 
conscientia faciat, metallo adjudicetur: si vero domini auctoritate vel jussione 
urgetur, relegatione plectatur. Et si forte detractum aliquid de sepuleris, ad 
domum ejus villamque pervectum post hane legem reperietur, villa, sive domus, 
aut cedificium quodeumque erit, fisci viribus vindicetur. 

e Ibid. leg. ii. Factum, solitum sanguine vindicari, multze inflictione corri- 
gimus, ete. See preceding note (c). 

f Ibid. leg. iii. (ibid. vol. iii, p. 142.) Quosdam comperimus, Incri nimium 
cupidos, sepulera subvertere, et substantiam fabricandi ad proprias ἐθ 488 trans- 
ferre: hi, detecto scelere, animadversionem priscis legibus definitam, subire 
debebunt. 


484, THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


either stones, or marble, or pillars, or any other material, 
whether to use in any building, or to sell them: and then he 
subjoins ὅδ, “* That this punishment is intended as an addition 
over and above to the ancient severity:” for he would not 
derogate any thing from that punishment, which was before 
imposed upon those who offered violence to the graves of the 
dead: ‘* Because,” as he says in the beginning of his law, “ it 
was a double crime, equally injurious both to the dead and the 
living: to the dead, by destroying and spoiling their habita- 
tions ; and to the living, by polluting them in the use of such 
materials in building.” And he adds, in the close, that “ his 
intention was to include within these penalties all such as med- 
dled with the bodies and relics of the dead, as well as those 
who defaced their sepulchres.” There is also a law of Julian’s 
in the Theodosian Code, wherein he first complains of the 
audaciousness of men in demolishing sepulchres, and stealing 
away the ornaments of them ; and then orders such to be pro- 
secuted ἢ, with the severity of the former laws made against 
them. Finally, Theodosius Junior and Valentinian III. made 
a most severe law against all such invaders, of what quality 
soever, appointing their punishment according to the dignity 
of the persons concerned. If a slave or a countryman was 
apprehended in this crime‘, he was immediately to be put to 


8 Cod. Theod. lib, ix. tit. xvii. de Sepuler. Violatis, leg. iv. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 143.) Qui zedificia manium violant, domus (ut ita dixerim) defune- 
torwm, geminum videntur facinus perpetrare: nam et sepultos spoliant destru- 
endo, et vivos polluunt, fabricando. Si quis igitur de Sepulero abstulerit saxa, 
vel marmora, vel columnas, aliamve quameumque materiam, fabricz gratia, sive 
id fecerit venditurus, decem pondo auri cogatur inferre fiseo; sive quis propria 
sepulcra defendens, hane in judicium querelam detulerit, sive quicumque alius 
accusaverit, vel Officium nuntiaverit. Quze poena priscz severitati accedit ; 
nihil enim derogatum est illi supplicio, quod sepulera violantibus videtur im- 
positum. Huie autem poenze subjacebunt, et qui corpora sepulta, aut reliquias 
contractaverint. 

h Ibid. leg. v. (ibid. vol. iii. p. 144.) Hoe fieri prohibemus, poena manium 
vindice cohibentes. See before, chap. ii. sect. ii. note (d), p. 390. 

1 Valentin. Novel. ν. de Sepuleris, ad caleem Cod. Theod. (vol. vi. p. 22, b.) 
Servos colonosve, in hoe facinore deprehensos, duci protinus ad tormenta con- 
venit. Si de sua tantum fuerint temeritate confessi, luant commissa sanguine 
suo. Si dominos inter supplicia nullo interrogante nexuerint, pariter puniantur. 
Ingenui quoque, quos similis preesumtio reos fecerit, si fortasse plebeii et nul- 
Jarum fuerint facultatum, peenas morte persolvant. Splendidiores autem, vel 


Cuar. IV. § 3. CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 455 


the rack: and if he confessed that it was his own act, and his 
master was not concerned in it, he was to be put to death. If 
his master was concerned in it, he was punished in lke man- 
ner. Ifa freeman was found guilty, who was but a plebeian, 
and had no estate, he was also to suffer death. If he had an 
estate, or was in any dignity, he was to be amerced in half his 
estate, and for ever after to be made infamous in law. Ifa 
clergyman was found guilty of this crime, whether bishop or 
inferior, he was immediately to be degraded, and lose the name 
of a clerk, and to be sent into banishment, without redemp- 
tion. And all judges are strictly charged to see this law 
duly put in execution.—‘ Pax sepultis, ‘ Peace be to the 


dead.’ 


Secr. I1].—No Indulgence allowed to Robbers of Graves by 
the Emperors at the Easter Festival. 


To give these laws the greater force and terror, it was usual 
with the emperors, when they granted their indulgence to 
several criminals, according to custom, at the Kaster festival, 
still to except robbers of graves, with other great criminals, 
whom they thought unworthy of any such pardon or indul- 
gence; such as men guilty of sacrilege, incest, ravishment, 
adultery, sorcery, necromancy, counterfeiting or adulterating 
the public coin, together with murder and treason: as we find 
the exceptions made in several laws of Valentinian, and Gra- 
tian, and Theodosius Senior, and Theodosius Junior, and 
Valentinian III., put together in one title in the Theodosian 
Codei, beside this famous law of Valentinian, now recited. 


dignitatibus noti, bonorum suorum medietate multati, perpetua notentur infamia. 
Clericos vero, quos tam diri operis constiterit auctores, dignos credimus majore 
supplicio: vehementius enim coércendus est, quem peccasse mireris ... Quis- 
quis igitur ex hoc numero sepulcrorum violator exstiterit, illico clerici nomen 
amittat, et sic stilo proscriptionis addictus, perpetua deportatione plectatur .. . 
Sed quoniam plerumque statutis salubribus dissimulatione venalium judicum 
negatur effectus, presenti jubemus edicto, ut provincize moderator, adminiculo 
municipum fultus, censuram nostree legis exerceat. .. . Criminosis poena redda- 
tur, pax sepultis. 

i Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xxviii. de Indulgentiis Criminum, leg. 111, iv. vi. 
vii. viii. See book xx. chap. v. sect. vi. notes (1), (m), ().; 


4.56 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


Secr. 1V.—For this Crime a Woman was allowed by the Laws 
to give a Bill of Divorce to her Husband. 


And it is remarkable also, that Constantine, who allowed 
a woman liberty to put away her husband for three crimes, 
made this one of the three :—if he was a murderer, or a 
sorcerer, or a robber of graves*. And Theodosius Junior also 
puts the same crime among the legal causes of divorce both 
in men and women in one of his laws}, which Justinian not 
only put into his new Code, but confirmed by several laws and 
novels of his own composing, as has been already showed more 
at large in handling the matter of divorces in the last Book™. 
Neither were the ecclesiastical laws wanting in the punishment 
of this crime, which was reputed the most barbarous and inhu- 
man sort of robbery of any other: concerning which I have 
spoken fully under the head of Ecclesiastical Discipline", and 
therefore need say no more of it in this place. 


Sect. V.—One Reason tempting Men to commit this Crime, 
was the rich Adorning of the Heathen Sepulchres. 


Now if it be inquired, what made men, professing Chris- 
tianity, to be so much addicted to this vice, that there should 
be need of so many laws against it? I answer, there were 
three motives or temptations to this kind of robbery, two of 
which had something plausible in them; but the first had 
nothing but downright covetousness in it, arising from the rich 
ornaments and splendid furniture of many of the heathen 
monuments built over their graves ; which some wicked Chris- 
tians, as well as others, looking upon, not so much with an 
envious, as a covetous and rapacious eye, took occasion, either 
publicly or privately, to make a spoil and plunder of them. 
This is evident from the complaints made in the several laws, 
of such robbers carrying off marble stones, and pillars, and 


k Cod. Theod. lib. iii. tit. xvi. de Repudiis, leg. i. In repudio mittendo a 
femina, heee sola crimina inquiri placet, si homicidam, vel medicamentarium, 
vel sepulerorum dissolutorem, maritum suum esse probaverit. 

' Cod. Justin. lib. v. tit. xvii. de Repudiis, leg. viii. (Amstelod, 1663. p. 162.) 

m Book xxii. chap. v. sect. v. and viii. 

n Book xvi. chap. vi. sect. xxiv. vol. vi. 


παρ, TV. § 6. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 457 


other rich furniture, either to adorn their own houses there- 
with, or make a gain of them by selling to others. Some were 
so base and sordid as to pull down monuments to ‘make lime 
with,’ or to sell them to others for that purpose, ‘ coquendze 
calcis gratia,’ as one of the laws words it. 


Secr. VI—A more plausible Pretence was taken up from the 
Laws, that ordered all Heathen Altars and Images to be 
demolished. 


But this rapacious humour was something covered with a 
plausible pretence of piety and zeal for the Christian religion. 
For Constantine (an. 333) had ordered all altars and images, 
as well as temples, to be destroyed: and the heathen monu- 
ments and sepulchres were often adorned with such images : 
which gave occasion, beyond the meaning of the law, to bad 
men to demolish the heathen monuments, under the notion of 
destroying images, and rooting out idolatry, and all the remains 
and footsteps of it. Had they kept within the intent of the 
law, only destroying images and altars, and not the graves 
themselves, there had been no just reason of complaint: but 
when, under this pretence, they destroyed not only the images, 
but the whole edifice of the monuments, erasing the titles, and 
disturbing the bodies or ashes of the dead, and carrying off 
marble stones and pillars, and whatever was ornamental or 
valuable about them; this was thought intolerable by the suc- 
ceeding emperors: and therefore so many good laws were made 
against the hypocritical rapaciousness of such illegal pretenders 
to reformation. The law was good, had they used it lawfully : 
but they, through covetousness and rapine, went beyond their 
bounds: and therefore Constans, the son of Constantine (an. 
349), ordered all these creatures to be called to an account, 
who had so abused the law of his father ; and, under pretence 
of destroying images, had the marble ornaments and pillars 
taken away, and the stones thrown down, to burn into lime Ὁ: 


© Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. xvii. de Sepuleris, leg. ii. (Lugd. 1665. vol. iii. 
p. 139.) Universi itaque, qui de monumentis columnas vel marmora abstulerunt, 
vel coquende calcis gratia lapides dejeccrunt, ex consulatu scilicet Dalmatii et 
Zenophili, singulas libras auri per singula sepulera fisci rationibus inferant. .. . 


458 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


whosoever of this sort could be discovered, from the time that 
Dalmatius and Zenophilus were consuls, that is, from the year 
333, when Constantine first published his edict, which they 
fraudulently took advantage of, they should forfeit to the 
emperor’s coffer a pound of gold for every monument so 
defaced: and whoever for the future was found guilty of such 
rapine, should be amerced twenty pounds of gold, to the use 
of the exchequer likewise. So that this pretence of demolish- 
ing heathen monuments, under the notion of destroying idol- 
atry, was a mere hypocritical act of covetousness, varnished 
over with a face of religion. 


Sect. VII.—A third Reason was, to get the Relics of Martyrs 
to sell, and make Gain of them. 


There was also a third temptation of the same nature, 
which seems to have prevailed even among some of the more 
senseless and covetous clergy ; which was the gainful trade 
of getting and selling the relics of martyrs. This made them, 
for the sake of filthy lucre, rob graves, and steal away the 
bones of martyrs, or any others, that they might have a 
sufficient stock of relics (true or false, it mattered not which) 
to feed the foolish superstition of such as were willing to let 
them make a gain of them. This kind of superstition, caleu- 
lated to encourage covetousness and religious cheats, was 
stirring among some in the Church betimes. For though 
the Church, for above five hundred years, made no other use 
of the relics of martys but only decently to inter them, yet 
some superstitious persons privately made another use of them. 
Optatus says, Lucilla, the rich foundress, as one may call 
her, of the Donatist schism, was used, before she received 
the eucharist, to kiss the mouth of a certain martyr, which, 


Quod si aliquis contra sanctionem Clementize nostree sepulcrum leesurus atti- 
gerit, viginti libras auri largitionibus nostris cogatur inferre. 

P Optat. lib. i. (Du Pin, Paris. 1702. p. 16.) Hoe apud Carthaginem post 
ordinationem Ceeciliani factum esse, nemo est qui nesciat: per Lucillam scilicet, 
nescio quam feminam factiosam, quee ante concussam persecutionis turbinibus 
pacem, dum adhuce in tranquillo esset ecclesia, quum correptionem archidiaconi 
Cveciliani ferre non posset, quae ante spiritalem cibum et potum, os nescio cujus 
martyris, si tamen martyris, libare dicebatur; et quum preeponeret calici salu- 


5 


Cuap. IV. ὃ 7. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 459 


whether true or false, she had procured, and kept by her for 
that purpose. or this she was gravely reproved by Ceecilian, 
then archdeacon of Carthage: which she so resented and 
remembered, that when he came to be bishop, she being a 
rich, potent, factious woman, by her interest, procured some 
others to be set up against him: which was the first beginning 
of the schism of the Donatists, founded upon the pride of an 
imperious woman, who was incorrigibly bent upon the super- 
stitious veneration of the relic of a martyr. St. Austin like- 
wise tells us‘, there were, in his time, a great many wandering 
idle monks, hypocritical men, who, by the instigation of Satan, 
went about the world, selling relics of martyrs; which it was 
very doubtful whether they were the relics of true martyrs or 
not. However, they made a gainful trade of it; and, no 
doubt, were tempted upon that account to rob the graves of 
the martyrs, or some others, which would as well serve their 
purpose. In opposition to this sort of men, Theodosius the 
Great made an express law', “‘ That no one should remove 
any dead body that was buried from one place to another ; 
that no one should sell or buy the relics of martyrs: but if 
any one was minded to build over the grave where a martyr 
was buried, a church, to be called a ‘martyrium,’ in respect to 
him, he should have liberty to do it.” This was, then, the 
honour that was paid to martyrs, to let them lie quietly in 
their graves, and build churches over them, which were dedi- 
cated to God and his service, not to any religious worship of 


tari os nescio cujus hominis mortui, et si martyris, sed nec dum vindicati, 
correpta, cum confusione irata discessit....P.19. Lucilla, que jam dudum 
ferre non potuit disciplinam, cum omnibus suis potens et factiosa femina, com- 
munioni misceri noluit. . . . Schisma igitur illo tempore confusze mulieris iracun- 
dia peperit, ambitus nutrivit, avaritia roboravit, ete. 

4 Aug. de Opere Monacher. ὁ. xxviii. (Bened. 1700. vol. vi. p. 364, F.) Cal- 
lidissimus hostis...tum multos hypocritas sub habitu monachorum usque- 
quaque dispersit, cireumeuntes provincias, nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, 
nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes. Alii membra martyrum, si tamen marty- 
rum, venditant: alii fimbrias et phylacteria sua magnificant: etc. 

r Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. vii. de Sepuleris Violatis, leg. vii. (Lugd. 1665. 
vol. iii. p. 152.) Humatum corpus nemo ad alium locum transferat ; nemo mar- 
tyrem distrahat, nemo mercetur: habeant vero in potestate, si quolibet in loco 
sanctorum aliquis est conditus, pro ejus veneratione, quod ‘martyrium’ vocan- 
dum sit, addant quod voluerint fabricarum. 


460 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


the martyr; only in honour to him the Church might be 
called a ‘martyrium’ after his name; but beyond this no 
honour was to be given to him under any pretence of venera- 
tion: and to take up his body, and make merchandise of his 
bones, was so far from veneration, that it was reckoned a 
disturbing of his ashes and a robbing of graves, which was 
mere covetousness, hypocritically covered under the name of 
religion. I question not but the law of Valentinian ITI., 
which speaks of bishops, and others of the clergy, who were 
concerned in robbing of graves, was levelled against this sort 
of men, who digged up the bones of martyrs, and sold them as 
holy relics, to gratify their own lucre at the expense of super- 
stitious people, who thought it an honour to a martyr to keep 
his bones above ground; whereas all the laws of church and 
state then reckoned it a sacrilegious robbing of graves, and 
disturbance of those holy relics, which ought to have lain quiet 
and undisturbed to the resurrection. 


Sect. VIII—A peculiar Custom in Egypt to keep the Bodies 
embalmed and unburied in their Houses above Ground. 


There was a peculiar custom in Egypt, which might have 
given great encouragement to this wicked practice; though 
we do not find men made that ill use of it, however it was 
disapproved upon another account. For the custom of Egypt 
was so to embalm the dead, as to keep them either in their 
houses, or in monuments and mausoleums above ground. The 
body so ordered was, by the ancient Greek writers, called 
τάριχος; the Hgyptians called it ‘gabbara;’ and modern 
writers, ‘mummia,’ as Gataker’ observes from the Arabic 
word, ‘mum,’ which denotes ‘wax,’ used chiefly in this em- 
balming. Most ancient writers speak of this Egyptian way 
of embalming: and Tully more particularly takes noticet of 
their keeping the bodies so embalmed in’ their own houses 


5. Gataker. Not. in Marc. Anton. lib. iv. (Lond. 1697. p. 174.) Ita apud illos 
cadaver fit τάριχος, id est, ‘ salsura,’ sive ‘mummia,’ uti appellant recentiores 
medicorum filii, ab Arabico mum, id est, ‘cera; quia ceromate etiam in eo 
negotio utebantur ; apud istos τέφρα, id est, “ favilla’ vel “ cinis.’ 

t Cie. Quest. Tuscul. lib. i. ¢. xlv. (Rath, 1805. p. 120.) Condiunt Aigyptii 
mortuos, et eos servant domi. 


Crap. IV. 8 8. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. AGL 


without any other burial. This custom, it seems, was also 
retained among the Christians of Egypt, many of whom (it is 
certain not all) were wont not to bury their dead under 
ground: but when they had embalmed them, to keep them 
still in their houses laid in bed, out of reverence and honour 
for their persons. Athanasius says", St. Antony, the famous 
Egyptian hermit, was very much offended at this custom; and, 
therefore, he was used, with a great deal of freedom, to tell 
the bishops of Egypt, that they ought to teach the people 
better, and endeavour to break the custom. For the bodies 
of the patriarchs and prophets were kept in their sepulchres 
unto this day ; and the body of our Lord was laid in a grave 
to the time of his resurrection. By which arguments he 
showed that it was a sin for any man not to bury the bodies of 
his dead under the earth, although they were holy. “ For 
what can be greater or more holy than the body of the Lord” 
Upon this many people changed their custom, and buried the 
bodies of the dead under ground, giving God thanks that 
they were better instructed. It is added a little after, that 
St. Antony gave orders that his own body should so be buried ; 
which was accordingly done in a place that no one knew of 
beside the two persons that took care of his funeral. But it 
was not easy to break an inveterate custom ; and therefore, 
though many left off this way, yet many continued it still: for 
St. Austin speaks of it’ as a thing in use among the Egyptians 
in his time, at least to dry the bodies of the dead by their 
curious way of embalming, which made them almost as hard as 


u Athanas. Vit. Anton. (Patav. 1777. vol. i. p. 690, A 2.) ‘O ᾿Αντώνιος 
πολλάκις περὶ τούτου Kai ἐπισκόπους ἠξίου παραγγέλλειν τοῖς λαοῖς" 
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ λαϊκοὺς ἐνέτρεπε, καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπέπληττεν' λέγων, μήτε 
νόμιμον, μήτε ὅλως ὕσιον εἶναι τοῦτο καὶ γὰρ τὰ τῶν πατριαρχῶν καὶ 
τῶν προφητῶν σώματα μέχρι νῦν σώζεται εἰς μνήματα" καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ τοῦ 
Κυρίου σῶμα εἰς μνημεῖον ἐτέθη" λίθος τε ἐπιτεθεὶς ἔκρυψεν αὐτὸ, ἕως 
ἀνέστη τριήμερον. Καὶ ταῦτα λέγων, ἐδείκνυε παρανομεῖν τὸν μετὰ θάνα- 
τον μὴ κρύπτοντα τὰ σώματα τῶν τελευτώντων, κἂν ἅγια τυγχάνῃ τί 
γὰρ μεῖζον ἢ ἁγιώτερον τοῦ Κυριακοῦ σώματος; πολλοὶ οὖν ἀκούσαντες, 
ἔκρυψαν ὑπὸ γὴν λοιπὸν, καὶ ηὐχαρίστουν τῷ Κυρίῳ, καλῶς διδαχθέντες. 

ν Aug. Serm. exx. de Diversis, 6. xii. (Bened. 1700. vol. ν. p. 984, F.) 
Aigyptii diligenter curant cadavera mortuorum: morem enim habent siccare 
corpora, et quasi cenea reddere: ‘ gabbaras’ ea vocant. 


469 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XXIII. 


brass, and kept them from corruption. These, in their lan- 
guage, they called by a peculiar name, ‘ gabbaree,’ which, 1 
think, we may English, ‘ Egyptian mummies.’ He does not 
expressly say they still kept them above ground; but he seems 
to intimate as much, in saying, they intended by their em- 
balming ‘to harden them like brass,’ and preserve them from 
corruption. 


Srcr. [X.—Wo Religious Worship allowed to be given to Relics 
in the Ancient Church till after the Time of St. Austin. 


We may hence draw several arguments, as Mr. Daillé has 
done in a very curious and learned book”, to prove that there 
was no religious worship given to the relics of saints and mar- 
tyrs, for several of the first ages in the Church. For their 
great care was to bury them under-ground (and not set them 
upon the altar*, as in after-ages). This was the greatest 
respect they thought they could pay to them. St. Antony 
thought it was a great disrespect to keep them above ground 
unburied. The laws made it sacrilege to rob a grave for the 
sake of them, and absolutely forbade any one to buy or sell the 
relics of a martyr. Lucilla was reproved for paying an undue 
respect to them. St. Austin inveighs against the monks that 
went about the world selling the relics of martyrs; and he 
condemns those who worshipped graves and pictures, under 
pretence of honouring’ the dead, whom he put into the same 
class with those who made themselves drunk at the monuments 
of the martyrs, and placed their intemperance to the account 
of religion. ‘All such,” he says, “were a scandal to the 
Church, whom she condemned as ignorant and superstitious 
men, and daily laboured to correct them as wicked children.” 


w Dallzeus de Objecto Cultus Religiosi, lib. iv. tot. 

x Mabillon (Liturg. Gallicana, book i. ch. ix. sect. iv. p. 83.) owns there were 
no relics set upon the altar even to the tenth century. Hee narratio imnuit, 
raro per id tempus, id est, seculo decimo, reliquias altari impositas fuisse. 

y Aug. de Moribus Ecclesize Cathol. c. xxxiv. (Bened. 1700. vol. i. p. 321, 
B 12.) Novi multos esse sepulerorum et picturarum adoratores: novi multos 
esse, qui luxuriosissime super mortuos bibant, et epulas cadaveribus exhibentes, 
super sepultos se ipsos sepeliant, et voracitates ebrietatesque suas deputent 
religioni, ete. 


Car. TV. 8 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 463 


There is one instance, in the third century, of some well- 
meaning Christians, who, after the martyrs Fructuosus and 
Eulogius were burnt, gathered up their remains, and would 
have kept them by them only out of respect and love, not for 
any religious worship: but Fructuosus, after his passion ’, 
appeared to them, and admonished them to restore immedi- 
ately whatever part of the ashes any one out of love had taken 
to himself, and that putting them all together they should bury 
them in one common grave. The great care of the Church 
and of the martyrs themselves in those days, was not to have 
their relics kept above ground for worship, but to be decently 
buried under the earth. And, therefore, when the heathen 
judge asked Eulogius the deacon, who suffered with Fruc- 
tuosus, his bishop, ‘“‘ Whether he would not worship Fruc- 
tuosus as a martyr after death?” he plainly replied, “1 do not 
worship Fructuosus*, but Him only whom Fructuosus wor- 
ships.” The like answer was given by the brethren of the 
Church of Smyrna to the suggestion of the Jews, when, at the 
martyrdom of Polycarp, the Jews desired the heathen judge, 
that he would not permit the Christians to carry off the body 
of Polycarp, lest they should leave their crucified master, and 
begin to worship this man in his stead. ‘ This suggestion,” 
says the answer”, “proceeded purely from ignorance, and a 


Z Acta Fructuosi, apud Baron. an. 262. n. Ixviii. (Lucz, vol. iii. p. 127.) Ut 
quod unusquisque per caritatem de cineribus usurpaverat, restituerent sine 
mora, unoque in loco simul condendos curarent. 

a Tbid. n. Ixii. (p. 126.) Ego Fructuosum non colo: sed ipsum colo, quem et 
Fructuosus. 

b Acta Polyearpi apud Euseb. lib. iv. 6. xv. (Reading, 1720. p. 170, 30.) 
(Vales. Amstelod. 1695. p. 109, A 11.) Ὑπέβαλον γοῦν τινες Νικήτην τὸν 
τοῦ Ἡρώδου πατέρα, ἀδελφὸν δὲ Δάλκης, ἐντυχεῖν τῷ ἡγεμόνι, ὥστε μὴ 
δοῦναι αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα μὴ, φησὶν, ἀφέντες τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, τοῦτον 
ἄρξωνται σέβειν καὶ ταῦτα εἷπον, ὑποβαλόντων καὶ ἐνισχυσάντων τῶν 
Ἰουδαίων, οἱ καὶ ἐτήρησαν, μελλόντων ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς αὐτὸν λαμβάνειν, 
ἀγνοοῦντες Ott οὔτε τὸν Χριστόν ποτε καταλιπεῖν δυνησόμεθα, τὸν ὑπὲρ 
τῆς τοῦ παντὸς κύσμου τῶν σωζομένων σωτηρίας παθόντα, οὔτε ἕτερόν τινα 
σέβειν: τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ Θεοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν" τοὺς δὲ μάρτυ- 
ρας ὡς μαθητὰς τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ μιμητὰς ἀγαπῶμεν ἀξίως, ἕνεκα εὐνοίας 
ἀνυπερβλήτου τῆς εἰς τὸν ἴδιον βασιλέα καὶ διδάσκαλον" ὧν γένοιτο καὶ 
ἡμᾶς συγκοινωνούς τε καὶ συμμαθητὰς γενέσθαι. Ἰδὼν οὖν ὁ ἑκατοντάρχης 
τὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων γενομένην φιλονεικίαν, θεὶς αὐτὸν ἐν μέσῳ, ὡς ἔθος 


~ ~ , ‘ , , 
αὐτοῖς, ἔκαυσεν. οὕτως τε ἡμεῖς ὕστερον ἀνελόμενοι τὰ τιμιώτερα λίθων 


404. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


false presumption, that we could either forsake Christ, or wor- 
ship any other. For we worship Christ, as being the Son of 
God: but the martyrs, as the disciples and followers of the 
Lord, we love with a due affection, for their great love of their 
own King and Master; with whom we desire to be partners 
and fellow-disciples.” They add, that when his body was 
burned, they gathered up the bones, more precious and yalu- 
able than any gold or precious stones, and buried them in a 
convenient place, where, by God’s permission, they intended to 
meet and celebrate his birthday with joy and gladness, as well 
for the memorial of those who have bravely’suffered and fought 
as champions before, as for the exercise and preparation of 
those that come after. I will only add one testimony more 
out of St. Austin, where he makes some pious reflections upon 
the Passions of the foresaid Fructuosus and Eulogius. He 
mentions the same answer of Eulogius to the judge, that the 
Acts speak of ; when the judge asked him, ““ Whether he 
would worship Fructuosus;” he replied, “1 do not worship 
Fructuosus ; but I worship Him whom Fructuosus also wor- 
ships.” Upon which St. Austin makes this remark°, “ That 


πολυτελῶν Kai δοκιμώτερα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ, ἀπεθέμεθα ὕπου καὶ 
ἀκόλουθον ἦν" ἔνθα ὡς δυνατόν ἡμῖν συναγομένοις ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ χαρᾷ, 
παρέξει ὁ Κύριος ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον, 
εἴς τε τῶν προηθληκότων μνήμην, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἄσκησίν τε καὶ 
ἑτοιμασίαν. 

¢ Aug. Serm. ci. de Diversis. (Bened. 1700. vol. v. p. 771, D 11.) Quomodo 
nos admonuit, ut martyres honoremus, et cum martyribus Deum colamus 2 
Neque enim tales esse debemus, quales paganos dolemus. Et quidem  illi 
mortuos homines colunt. [li quippe omnes, quorum nomina auditis, quibus 
templa constructa sunt, homines fuerunt; et in rebus humanis habuerunt ple- 
rique eorum et pene omnes regiam potestatem. Auditis Jovem, auditis Hereu- 
lem, auditis Neptunum, auditis Plutonem, Mercurium, Liberum (p. 772), et 
ceteros ; homines fuerunt. Non ista solum in fabulis poétarum, sed etiam in 
historia gentium declarantur. Qui legerunt, noverunt: qui non legerunt, 
credant eis qui legerunt. Illi ergo homines beneficiis quibusdam temporalibus 
res humanas sibi conciliaverunt, et ab hominibus vanis et vana sectantibus ita 
coli coeperunt, ut dii vocarentur, dii haberentur, tamquam diis templa eedifica- 
rentur, tamquam diis supplicaretur, tamquam diis arze constituerentur, tam- 
quam diis sacerdotes ordinarentur, tamquam diis vietimee immolarentur. (§ iv.) 
Templum autem solus Deus verus habere debet, sacrificium soli Deo vero offerri 
debet. (§ vii.) Non eis templa, non eis altaria, non sacrificia exhibemus. Non 
eis sacerdotes offerunt: absit. Deo preestantur. Immo Deo ista offeruntur, a 


Cuap. IV. § 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 465 


hereby we are taught to honour the martyrs, but not to worship 
them, but only to worship the God whom the martyrs worship. 
For we ought not to be such as the pagans are, whom we 
lament upon that very account, because they worship dead 
men. For all those whose names you hear, to whom temples 
are built, were men, and all, or most of them, kings among 
men: as you have heard of Jupiter, Hercules, Neptune, Pluto, 
Mercury, Bacchus, and the rest; whom not only the fictions 
of the poets, but the histories of all nations, declare and evi- 
dence to have been men, who, having obliged the world with 
some temporal kindnesses, were, after death, worshipped by 
vain men, who called and esteemed them gods, and_ built 
temples to them as gods, and prayed to them as gods, and 
erected altars to them as gods, and ordained priests for them 
as gods, and offered sacrifices to them as gods: whereas the 
true God alone ought to have temples, and sacrifices ought to 
be offered to the true God alone.” As for the martyrs, he says, 
they did neither take them for gods, nor worship them as 
gods: ‘‘ We give them no temples, nor altars, nor sacrifices ; 
neither do the priests offer to them:—God forbid. These 
things are only done to God, and offered to Him from whom 
alone we obtain all good things, at the memorials of the 
martyrs. ‘Therefore if any one asks thee, Whether thou 
worship Peter,—answer as Eulogius did concerning Fructuosus, 
‘I do not worship Peter, but I worship Him whom Peter also 
worships.”” Then he brings in the example of Paul and 
Barnabas refusing to be worshipped by the Lycaonians, and 
the example of the angel refusing to be worshipped by St. John, 
and bidding him to worship God alone. After which he adds 
these remarkable words in the close, both against those who 
kept feasts at the graves of the martyrs, and those who wor- 
shipped them?: “ The martyrs hate your flagons of wine ; the 


quo nobis cuncta prestantur. Etiam apud Memorias sanctorum martyrum, 
quum offerimus, nonne Deo offerimus? . . . Quando audistis dici apud Memo- 
riam sancti Theogenis, a me vel ab aliquo fratre et collega meo, vel aliquo 
presbytero, Offero tibi, Sancte Theogenes ? aut, Offero tibi, Petre ? aut, Offero 
tibi, Paule?) Numquam audistis. Non fit: non licet. Et si dicatur tibi, Num- 
quid tu Petrum colis? responde quod de Fructuoso respondit Eulogius: ‘ Ego 
Petrum non colo, sed Deum colo, quem colit et Petrus.’ 

d Aug. Serm. ci. de Diversis. Oderunt martyres lagenas vestras, oderunt 


VOL. VII. Hh 


466 THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE Book XXIII. 


martyrs hate your frying-pans ; the martyrs hate your drunken 
revellings at their graves. I speak not these things to injure 
or reproach any who are not such: let them who do such 
things, take it to themselves. The martyrs, I say, hate these 
things, and love not those that do them. But they much more 
hate and abhor any worship that is offered to them.” These 
are plain evidences that no religious worship was given to the 
martyrs, much less to their relics, by the Church in the time 
of St. Austin. But some ignorant and superstitious persons 
were carried away with a blind zeal, to reckon those things to 
be an honour to the martyrs, which were a real reproach both 
to themselves and the Church, and displeasing both to God 
and the martyrs ; to whom the greatest honour they could do 
was to lay their relics quietly in the grave, and meet at their 
tombs to praise God for their glorious achievements and vie- 
tories over the terrors of death, and to excite themselves to 
piety and constancy in the faith by the provocation of their 
examples. Other honours to the dead the ancient Church 
knew none; at least, approved or encouraged none; but la- 
boured to correct and repress them wherever they appeared, 
as resembling too near, and favouring too much of, the follies 
and superstitions of the Gentiles, whose gods were only dead 
men, deified by their own consecration and worship, without 
any real foundation in nature: for by nature they were no 
gods. And this is the great irrefragable argument the an- 
cients always made use of against them: of which I have said 
enough both here and elsewhere ®: and so U put an end to this 
discourse concerning the manner of treating the dead in the 
ancient Church. 

I have now gone through the whole state of the Primitive 
Church, and given an account of the several parts of her public 
worship and offices of Divine service: which, in a great mea- 
sure, answers the design I at first proposed to myself, when I 
begun this work. Another book more of miscellaneous rites 
might be added: but having laboured in this work for twenty 


martyres sartagines vestras. Sine injuria eorum dico, qui tales non sunt: ili 
ad se referant, qui talia faciunt: oderunt ista martyres, non amant talia 
facientes. Sed multo plus oderunt, si colantur. 

e Book xiii. chap. iii. § i. vol. iv. p. 140. 


Cuar. IV. 8 9. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 467 


years, with frequent returns of bodily infirmities, which make 
hard study now less agreeable to a weakly constitution; and 
the things themselves being of no great moment; I rather 
chose to give the reader a complete and finished work, with an 
index to the whole, than by grasping at too much, to be forced 
to leave it imperfect, neither to my own nor the world’s satis- 
faction. I bless God for enabling me to go through the work 
with comfort and pleasure. I thank the world for their 
patience and approbation; and I thank my particular bene- 
factors more, as I think I am obliged to do, for their suitable 
encouragement to a work of such a nature. I blame none for 
want of encouragement, nor any that dislike the whole, or any 
part of it. They may have reasons, perhaps, which I know 
not of, and shall never inquire into. I hope, however, that it 
may prove a useful work, in some measure, both to the present 
and future generations ; as a learned prelate was once pleased 
to say to me, by way of approbation and encouragement, 
‘* Seres arbores, alteri seeculo profuturas.” If so, I shall have 
my end. Let the Church receive benefit; and God, the glory 
of all. 


LAUS DEO. 


END OF THE SEVENTH VOLUME. 


LONDON: 
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
ST. JOHN’S SQUARE. 








ὃ 


ἐλ ἢ, 
mL) 





RARIES 


OLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LG 


1}. 


0315024520 


= 


Υ BRITTLE DON 
PHOTOCOPY .